Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by on Wednesday January 04 2017, @09:13AM   Printer-friendly
from the the-computer-made-me-do-it dept.

Accidents involving driverless cars, calculating the probability of recidivism among criminals, and influencing elections by means of news filters—algorithms are involved everywhere. Should governments step in?

Yes, says Markus Ehrenmann of Swisscom.

The current progress being made in processing big data and in machine learning is not always to our advantage. Some algorithms are already putting people at a disadvantage today and will have to be regulated.

For example, if a driverless car recognises an obstacle in the road, the control algorithm has to decide whether it will put the life of its passengers at risk or endanger uninvolved passers-by on the pavement. The on-board computer takes decisions that used to be made by people. It's up to the state to clarify who must take responsibility for the consequences of automated decisions (so-called 'algorithmic accountability'). Otherwise, it would render our legal system ineffective.

[...]
No, says Mouloud Dey of SAS.

We need to be able to audit any algorithm potentially open to inappropriate use. But creativity can't be stifled nor research placed under an extra burden. Our hand must be measured and not premature. Creative individuals must be allowed the freedom to work, and not assigned bad intentions a priori. Likewise, before any action is taken, the actual use of an algorithm must be considered, as it is generally not the computer program at fault but the way it is used.

It's the seemingly mysterious, badly intentioned and quasi-automatic algorithms that are often apportioned blame, but we need to look at the entire chain of production, from the programmer and the user to the managers and their decisions. We can't throw the baby out with the bathwater: an algorithm developed for a debatable use, such as military drones, may also have an evidently useful application which raises no questions.

Two opposing viewpoints are provided in this article; please share yours.


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday January 04 2017, @01:02PM

    by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday January 04 2017, @01:02PM (#449340)

    Not sure if it counts as regulation, but on the upside it does not involve a government body. The ACM has been publishing reference form of algorithms for decades.

    http://netlib.org/toms/ [netlib.org]

    Seems as though a learned body as that would be the quintessential gatekeeper.

  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday January 04 2017, @03:29PM

    by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday January 04 2017, @03:29PM (#449388)

    Government will adopt (read: anoint) the long-standing and widely recognized work of one of these "private" organizations (and will require a person to purchase a "private" copy of this work, because ignorance of the "law" is no excuse...), and then years later everyone will be telling libertarians once again how dangerous automated cars would be had bureaucrats in government not single-handedly developed all the rules and regulations that make our sweet little children safe. Wash, rinse, repeat. Business as usual, except the government will need more money this year than last year.