Is Ted Cruz Satan? Discuss.

[taxwonk]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

I don't see this improving a whole hell of a lot anytime soon. The shift toward hiring/renting/giving credit based on surface information is only increasing. Big data is going to bifurcate us unfairly and arbitrarily more than we were ever able to on our own in the past.

I think lawsuits over discrimination-by-algorithm are going to become more frequent and much larger in the next few decades.

Jumping off a bit, management and governance from the "helicopter view" are going to make a shit show of society, and I don't see any hope of us stopping it. There's a delusion being bought by almost all people with power that huge organizations, markets, and even countries can be fully understood and managed by viewing mere data about how they operate in aggregate.*

This thinking isn't irrational, of course, but we don't have to look far to see its Achilles Heel - the 2008 Crash. The aggregate data never provide a complete picture of what's going on at the street level. God only knows how much damage and unknown risk we'll cause by applying such know-it-all-ism and total reliance on necessarily blunt data in realms beyond finance and insurance.

______
*Wall Street would tell us otherwise, but their broad analyses only appear accurate because its all the same self-reinforcing data passed back and forth between and among the same limited actors, upon which those actors engage in herd investing, the timing of which creates profits. You don't have to have accurate data to win at musical chairs.

Of course that thinking is irrational. Pick a stereotype, any stereotype. Now, list the number of people you know who fit it. Compare to the number of people you know that don't.

[taxwonk]

Originally Posted by Adder

Hm. Theoretically big data will actually be able to replace the prejudices of the past with things that are actually predictive.

Take away the "theoretically" and this may be the dumbest thing ever said. Leave the word in and you're only in the top 10. For what it's worth, I don't really think you believe either one.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally Posted by Adder

Hm. Theoretically big data will actually be able to replace the prejudices of the past with things that are actually predictive.

Certainly some things that are predictive will correlate with race (or other historically disadvantaged classes) but others will not, leaving the black people who do not have those characteristics at least arguably better off.

"We won't lend do you because we have a lot of data showing you're a bad credit risk" is a different problem than "we won't lend to you because you're black" and, if the data's really there, substantially less unfair and arbitrary.

Predictive of what?

[Note: rhetorical question, no answer needed. Really.]

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Sidd Finch

Huh? The whole point of the studies discussed in the article was that there were no differences attributable to "big data" or "algorithm," but only differences in race (based on skin color or names).

Hence the caveat before the last section, "Jumping off..."

I see a future in which algorithms are used to sort people based on criteria discrimination law was designed to eliminate. And then are used as defenses where found to be doing so. "It wasn't me. It was the computer system." I've seen that defense myself in a discrimination case. It was not successful, but it was a legitimate defense, and can be easily employed given the increasing automation of everything.

[taxwonk]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

Hence the caveat before the last section, "Jumping off..."

I see a future in which algorithms are used to sort people based on criteria discrimination law was designed to eliminate. And then are used as defenses where found to be doing so. "It wasn't me. It was the computer system." I've seen that defense myself in a discrimination case. It was not successful, but it was a legitimate defense, and can be easily employed given the increasing automation of everything.

No. It isn't. We all know good and well that any statistical study is only going to reflect the prejudices of the designer. Anything other than a study that it purely quantitative is going to reflect bias that will be both racial and socioeconomic. Unless you're prepared to give a 3-bedroom house on the Main Line exactly the same weighting as a three-bedroom house in the shittiest neighborhood in Philly, your algorithm reflects bias.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by taxwonk

Of course that thinking is irrational. Pick a stereotype, any stereotype. Now, list the number of people you know who fit it. Compare to the number of people you know that don't.

I'm not saying stereotyping is rational. I'm saying the assumption one can deduce entirely what is taking place or will take place in any market, organization, or state based solely on aggregate blunt data is rational. It's a seductive proposition, playing to man's idiot belief he can conquer risk.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by taxwonk

No. It isn't. We all know good and well that any statistical study is only going to reflect the prejudices of the designer. Anything other than a study that it purely quantitative is going to reflect bias that will be both racial and socioeconomic. Unless you're prepared to give a 3-bedroom house on the Main Line exactly the same weighting as a three-bedroom house in the shittiest neighborhood in Philly, your algorithm reflects bias.

It's a legitimate defense in that, a court allowed it to be raised. "Sustainable" is perhaps the better legal term.

ETA: You'd be surprised how many people would disagree with the argument, "there are lies, damned lies, and statistics."

[ThurgreedMarshall]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

I don't see this improving a whole hell of a lot anytime soon. The shift toward hiring/renting/giving credit based on surface information is only increasing. Big data is going to bifurcate us unfairly and arbitrarily more than we were ever able to on our own in the past.

I think lawsuits over discrimination-by-algorithm are going to become more frequent and much larger in the next few decades.

Jumping off a bit, management and governance from the "helicopter view" are going to make a shit show of society, and I don't see any hope of us stopping it. There's a delusion being bought by almost all people with power that huge organizations, markets, and even countries can be fully understood and managed by viewing mere data about how they operate in aggregate.*

This thinking isn't irrational, of course, but we don't have to look far to see its Achilles Heel - the 2008 Crash. The aggregate data never provide a complete picture of what's going on at the street level. God only knows how much damage and unknown risk we'll cause by applying such know-it-all-ism and total reliance on necessarily blunt data in realms beyond finance and insurance.

______
*Wall Street would tell us otherwise, but their broad analyses only appear accurate because its all the same self-reinforcing data passed back and forth between and among the same limited actors, upon which those actors engage in herd investing, the timing of which creates profits. You don't have to have accurate data to win at musical chairs.

I am having trouble reconciling the fact that you have written English words in order such that they are actual sentences without having the ability to read.

TM

[Adder]

Originally Posted by taxwonk

Take away the "theoretically" and this may be the dumbest thing ever said. Leave the word in and you're only in the top 10. For what it's worth, I don't really think you believe either one.

Believe what you like, but I'm a whole lot more comfortable with lending decisions, for example, being made on the basis of a whole lot of data analysis than because the loan officer doesn't like the sound of the name on the form.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by ThurgreedMarshall

I am having trouble reconciling the fact that you have written English words in order such that they are actual sentences without having the ability to read.

TM

Do I have to say I agree with the article? Seems a waste of effort. How couldn't I? I read it twice by the way, having also scanned it in the Times yesterday.

I decided to offer a thought I had after reading it. This seemed the more interesting thing to do.

[Adder]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

I see a future in which algorithms are used to sort people based on criteria discrimination law was designed to eliminate.

Why? Because the data crunchers and their bosses just really want to discriminate?

Nah. They want to make money. They will end up using criteria that correlate with race but that they can show actually have meaning for the decision they are making.

Leaving the different and more difficult problem of how to level the playing field.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Adder

Why? Because the data crunchers and their bosses just really want to discriminate?

Nah. They want to make money. They will end up using criteria that correlate with race but that they can show actually have meaning for the decision they are making.

Leaving the different and more difficult problem of how to level the playing field.

Data crunchers can't think fast enough (to borrow the article's term). All is sacrificed to risk minimization and maximum efficiency. If it's found that an algorithm gets better results using prohibited bases for credit denial/renting/hiring, there will be pressure to nevertheless use it. And given many algorithms are self-tweaking, the algorithm itself might engage in the prohibited discrimination without any human programming toward doing so, providing the desired unlawful result and alibi all in one.

[taxwonk]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

It's a legitimate defense in that, a court allowed it to be raised. "Sustainable" is perhaps the better legal term.

ETA: You'd be surprised how many people would disagree with the argument, "there are lies, damned lies, and statistics."

Shit, I'm not even a litigator by habit, but give me 5 minutes with some programmer or expert on the stand and I could shred that argument.

"How did you place a value on Property A?"
We looked at comparables.
"Comparables?"
Yeah, you know, what properties with similar characteristics in similar neighborhoods sold for.
"So the value was dependent on neighborhood. Is that what you're saying?"
Well, yes.

[taxwonk]

Originally Posted by Adder

Believe what you like, but I'm a whole lot more comfortable with lending decisions, for example, being made on the basis of a whole lot of data analysis than because the loan officer doesn't like the sound of the name on the form.

What data?

[taxwonk]

Originally Posted by Adder

Nah. They want to make money. They will end up using criteria that correlate with race but that they can show actually have meaning for the decision they are making.

What criteria?