Quote:
Originally Posted by Adder
I want you to go back and re-read this discussion, because this is not okay. I don't appreciate you accusing me of something I've not done and I assume you're only doing so because you've misinterpreted something I've said.
If I've been too charitable, you can go make use of Atticus's angry fist of god with yourself if you think I've excused discrimination somehow.
|
Adder, I'm not accusing you of doing anything but buying into a myth that has been bought into my millions. The myth is that you can divide people or properties into different cohorts without taking race or socioeconomic status into account.
As an example, you build an algorithm that predicts risk of foreclosure. How are you going to divide up the properties? By zip code? By average home value? By number of foreclosures in a 2-mile radius? I defy you to pick a criteria that isn't reflective of the differences in our society.
Any argument that the algorithm is going to protect against downside and not perpetuate the race-wealth-education gaps is going to fall to the fact that an algorithm by definition has to categorize. If race, money, and education are all concentrated in a given area, then the distinguishing characteristic is reflected in the algorithm.
If you argue the algorithm serves a valuable purpose, then what is that purpose if not to exclude the riskier actors? Show me an algorithm that gets around this problem, I will concede. Any algorithm I can think of is going to perpetuate the discrimination. Anyone who uses that algorithm knows it will perpetuate the discrimination.
In short, it doesn't matter how much lipstick you apply. A pig is still a pig. I'm not getting personal with you. I'm suggesting that your premise is fatally flawed. If that gets me the angry fist of God, I will try to find a way to live with it. I tend to fall into that risk pool anyway.
Threaded Mode