Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by Fnord666 on Monday July 17 2017, @03:27PM   Printer-friendly
from the swear-on-a-stack-of-K&Rs dept.

At The Guardian, Cathy O'Neil writes about why algorithms can be wrong. She classifies the reasons into four categories on a spectrum ranging from unintential errors to outright malfeasance. As algorithms now make a large portion of the decisions affecting our lives, scrutiny is ever more important and she provides multiple examples in each category of their impact.


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This discussion has been archived.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 Monday July 17 2017, @04:56PM (8 children)

    by Anonymous Coward on Monday July 17 2017, @04:56PM (#540398)

    There seems to be a proliferation of these kinds of fear-mongering articles about "algorithms" lately. I understand where they come from - there are faceless corporations who make decisions algorithmically, and you have no way to appeal those decisions, and they're everywhere and mandatory. But, the fact that these stupid decisions are made by algorithms, rather than people, doesn't really change anything. The bank probably isn't going to change their decision about lending to you based exclusively on your credit score no matter how much you argue with their representative. They made it this way on purpose, likely to avoid cheating or reduce costs.

    Really, you have 1 complaint:
    The groups with power over you make decisions you don't like, with no meaningful mechanism to appeal.

    Yes, that sucks. No, you don't really have a way to fix it other than by writing LOTS of news articles or, in theory, by government intervention. In practice, that government intervention doesn't seem to provide much better outcomes.

  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday July 17 2017, @05:00PM (2 children)

    by Anonymous Coward on Monday July 17 2017, @05:00PM (#540401)

    You can stab the bank rep in the eye.. with a fork, can't do that with an algorithm

  • (Score: 2) by MichaelDavidCrawford on Monday July 17 2017, @06:23PM (4 children)

    Protests are far more effective than lawsuits.

    --
    Yes I Have No Bananas. [gofundme.com]
    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday July 17 2017, @06:47PM (3 children)

      by Anonymous Coward on Monday July 17 2017, @06:47PM (#540472)

      What about forks, do forks work?

      • (Score: 2) by maxwell demon on Monday July 17 2017, @07:22PM

        by maxwell demon (1608) on Monday July 17 2017, @07:22PM (#540500) Journal

        Only if you merge them back into the trunk.

        --
        The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
      • (Score: 2) by MichaelDavidCrawford on Monday July 17 2017, @08:26PM (1 child)

        then if I fork it, will I have twice as much money?

        --
        Yes I Have No Bananas. [gofundme.com]
        • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday July 17 2017, @09:42PM

          by Anonymous Coward on Monday July 17 2017, @09:42PM (#540588)

          Your the banker I presume you can manipulate the code so it shows whatever like algorithms your just making it up ass you go along