Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by CoolHand on Thursday May 21 2015, @02:02PM   Printer-friendly
from the oh-the-inhumanity-of-it-all dept.

Algorithms tell you how to vote. Algorithms can revoke your driver’s license and terminate your disability benefits. Algorithms predict crimes. Algorithms ensured you didn’t hear about #FreddieGray on Twitter. Algorithms are everywhere, and, to hear critics, they are trouble. What’s the problem? Critics allege that algorithms are opaque, automatic, emotionless, and impersonal, and that they separate decision-makers from the consequences of their actions. Algorithms cannot appreciate the context of structural discrimination, are trained on flawed datasets, and are ruining lives everywhere. There needs to be algorithmic accountability. Otherwise, who is to blame when a computational process suddenly deprives someone of his or her rights and livelihood?

But at heart, criticism of algorithmic decision-making makes an age-old argument about impersonal, automatic corporate and government bureaucracy. The machine like bureaucracy has simply become the machine. Instead of a quest for accountability, much of the rhetoric and discourse about algorithms amounts to a surrender—an unwillingness to fight the ideas and bureaucratic logic driving the algorithms that critics find so creepy and problematic. Algorithmic transparency and accountability can only be achieved if critics understand that transparency (no modifier is needed) is the issue. If the problem is that a bureaucratic system is impersonal, unaccountable, creepy, and has a flawed or biased decision criteria, then why fetishize and render mysterious the mere mechanical instrument of the system’s will ?

http://www.slate.com/articles/technology/future_tense/2015/05/algorithms_aren_t_responsible_for_the_cruelties_of_bureaucracy.single.html

 
This discussion has been archived.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 Thursday May 21 2015, @03:59PM

    by Anonymous Coward on Thursday May 21 2015, @03:59PM (#186053)

    I see your utopian system (and thus, by my choice of words, you can see that I, too, would think that is a better place to be in) but who's paying for the power and raw materials of those machines? Who's paying for making the machines? Who's paying for designing the machines or the machines that make the machines?

  • (Score: 3, Funny) by SubiculumHammer on Thursday May 21 2015, @05:25PM

    by SubiculumHammer (5191) on Thursday May 21 2015, @05:25PM (#186106)

    Suppose an uber rich dude gave me a replicator robot. This robot first works a job and earns money for me This pays for raw materials. Each month this robot has the materials to replicate itself. I now have two robots. After a month I have over 1024 replicator robots working for me. 100 robots set out to build me a sweet house. 100 robots build a farm and raise food for me. 100 robots build furniture. 100 robots build an awesome swimming pool with a waterfall. 100 robots shop, clean, and cook food for me and my massive pool parties. 100 robots then give me massages, cut my hair and wipe my butt. 100 robots guard the perimeter of my property. 100 robots tailor my clothe me and my army. 100 robots do my doctoring and lawyering. 100 robots are maintain my robot army's good operation.

    The final 24 robots are unemployed hippies. Lazy turds.

    • (Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday May 21 2015, @05:27PM

      by Anonymous Coward on Thursday May 21 2015, @05:27PM (#186107)

      Damn it: Should have read after 10 months, not after a month.
      Can we please have editing capabilities when our Karma is really high?

  • (Score: 2) by tathra on Thursday May 21 2015, @05:29PM

    by tathra (3367) on Thursday May 21 2015, @05:29PM (#186108)

    who's paying for the power and raw materials of those machines? Who's paying for making the machines? Who's paying for designing the machines or the machines that make the machines?

    everyone, and everyone profits from it instead it all being consolidated into private hands. naturally this means socialism or even, god-forbid, communism. we know capitalism is broken, we know its endgame, and its not pretty unless you're part of the 0.1%, so we should be working on figuring out how to make things better instead of just throwing up our hands saying "Its too hard!" or saying "Fuck you, its not my problem". even if you're part of the 0.1%, it will be your problem when the hungry masses you created through relentless exploitation come your way with torches and pitchforks.

    • (Score: 2) by rts008 on Thursday May 21 2015, @07:05PM

      by rts008 (3001) on Thursday May 21 2015, @07:05PM (#186161)

      Each cycle of the 'rise and fall of X' we have had to go through, those in power are absolutely sure that they have it figured out and won't fail, as did the previous bunch before them...ad nauseum.

      From the perspective of those of us at the bottom 30%, it is brutal at best, and hellish on the 'down' cycle. The only thing I can figure, is that it has not gotten bad enough for most yet, or they have not realized how bad it is(drank the kool-aide). I don't really know.

      Maybe it will take a near-extinction event, or extraterrestrial invasion, or some other dramatic event for us to finally break this cycle. Even then, I find it hard to believe it could happen as long as religion and nationalism exist.

      I agree that some form of socialism and communism would be the way to go in an ideal world, but that would require everyone to be agreeable and cooperative.

      I just can't imagine that world as I remember my life experiences, look around me, and read/watch the news.

      What I find uncomfortable thinking about, is some of the similarities and parallels(social, cultural, and political) between Germany in the 1930's, and the USA this past 15 years. I by no means suggest or imply that we(USA) are turning into Nazi Germany...I'm not. Just some of the similar things and progressions are worth noting and scrutinizing, so as not to head that way unknowingly.

    • (Score: 1) by khallow on Saturday May 23 2015, @01:15AM

      by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Saturday May 23 2015, @01:15AM (#186733) Journal
      You know, a solution here is to let capitalism work? There's a lot less hungry masses now because of capitalism. We can look at all those growing countries that are doing well now. They have capitalism as a common trait. They usually have other traits like welfare state or whatever too, but everyone who isn't failing hard has private ownership of capital, relatively free markets, and the other useful tools of capitalism.

      it will be your problem when the hungry masses you created through relentless exploitation come your way with torches and pitchforks.

      Unless, you know, the 0.1% move and you find that you can't swim a couple thousand miles with a torch and pitchfork in your mouth. The hypothetically apathetic 0.1% are right. They don't have to care about you when they can hop on a plane and put you well behind them.

      While I'm sure there's some legitimate blame for this supposed 0.1%, let us recall that it's your society. If that society becomes overridden with the "hungry masses", then it's your fault especially since you're advocating dismantling one of the primary tools for curing such problems, capitalism.

      Further, exploitation is not somehow magically associated with capitalism. It is a key aspect of all human societies. We exist in the first place because our ancestors both exploited others and were useful to others. Cooperation which is the core of human society is mutual exploitation to mutual advantage.

      Further, there is a huge amount of built-in fail to the idea that a lot of the problems are the fault of one in a thousand people and that somehow if those people change their attitudes or perhaps, we take their stuff, then everything will be much better. It won't. They simply don't have enough to make much of a difference.

      Finally, the great irony is that this situation will eventually sort itself out. All this silly angst exists in the first place because of globalization and the vast amount of cheap human labor out there. Once most of those societies reach near parity with developed world labor, then the 0.1% problem will magically disappear as developed world labor resumes its centuries long climb. What is happening here is that global circumstances just happen in the developed world to favor owners of capital (which happens to be where the wealth of the 0.1% is located) over those whose wealth comes from labor. When that changes, then the perceived problems go away, just like they have in the past.

      • (Score: 2) by tathra on Saturday May 23 2015, @01:53PM

        by tathra (3367) on Saturday May 23 2015, @01:53PM (#186860)

        or perhaps, we take their stuff

        i always see this bullshit FUD from conservatives, and anyone who actually believes it is a total moron, incapable of thinking for themselves and just repeating the bullshit fed to them by the handful of people hoarding 99% of the world's wealth. non-capitalistic economies do not involve "tak[ing] their stuff". sharing profit among all the workers in a company (socialism) is not and never will be "stealing wealth by force". that you think it is shows your ignorance and misunderstanding.

        • (Score: 1) by khallow on Monday May 25 2015, @01:51AM

          by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Monday May 25 2015, @01:51AM (#187456) Journal

          or perhaps, we take their stuff

          i always see this bullshit FUD from conservatives

          I see this FUD from a lot of places. There's always someone greatly concerned about "greed", a thing which magically sprung up like a mushroom in the past few decades and completely explains the current problems whatever they happen to be. The problem always is someone who has more stuff than they do.

          sharing profit among all the workers in a company (socialism) is not and never will be "stealing wealth by force"

          Yea, we call it "wages". But I find it interesting how the people who speak of "sharing profit" never seen to realize that it is already universally done in capitalist societies.

          • (Score: 2) by tathra on Monday May 25 2015, @02:18AM

            by tathra (3367) on Monday May 25 2015, @02:18AM (#187467)

            There's always someone greatly concerned about "greed", a thing which magically sprung up like a mushroom in the past few decades and completely explains the current problems whatever they happen to be.

            red herring, has nothing to do with my statement.

            The problem always is someone who has more stuff than they do.

            not the problem at all.

            Yea, we call it "wages". But I find it interesting how the people who speak of "sharing profit" never seen to realize that it is already universally done in capitalist societies.

            i'll never understand how having a bunch of money but doing no actual work magically entitles one to earn $7308+/hr [epi.org] (not to mention straight stealing from their employees [epi.org]), but the people who actually do all the work don't even deserve to earn enough to live with any dignity. making >1000x more than everyone who works for your company, the people responsible for everything your company actually does, is not sharing profit in any way, its exploitation. so no, the sharing of profit is not universally done in capitalist societies. the facts do not agree with that statement.

            • (Score: 1) by khallow on Tuesday May 26 2015, @03:21AM

              by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Tuesday May 26 2015, @03:21AM (#187850) Journal

              i'll never understand how having a bunch of money but doing no actual work magically entitles one to earn $7308+/hr

              Who would pay someone that kind of money with expecting something in return? The answer to this conundrum is in who is actually deciding on those CEOs. They aren't working for you.

              And if a CEO were actually worth 1000x more to me than the rest of the employees, then I would pay that CEO more too.

              • (Score: 2) by tathra on Thursday May 28 2015, @06:36PM

                by tathra (3367) on Thursday May 28 2015, @06:36PM (#189242)

                Who would pay someone that kind of money with expecting something in return? The answer to this conundrum is in who is actually deciding on those CEOs. They aren't working for you.

                the workers are the ones directly responsible for the company's success; they're the ones actually doing everything. a good leader is plenty valuable, yes, but a good leader recognizes just how valuable his subordinates are. i don't have a problem with managers being paid more than their subordinates, its the ratio of subordinate pay:manager pay thats the problem. pretty much everything stems from the fucked up view of 'short-term profits over all else' that we have now; cutting worker pay and benefits to raise CEO pay and dumb shit like that is creating a negative feedback loop that will destroy the companies themselves, but of course the people doing it don't care because they'll have everything they need, so its "not [their] problem".

                • (Score: 1) by khallow on Thursday June 04 2015, @06:28PM

                  by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Thursday June 04 2015, @06:28PM (#192215) Journal

                  the workers are the ones directly responsible for the company's success

                  And why is that supposed to be important? The people making the decisions don't have an interest in a successful company. It's just not important to them. That's why they can, again and again, pick terrible people and gain by it.

                  its the ratio of subordinate pay:manager pay thats the problem. pretty much everything stems from the fucked up view of 'short-term profits over all else' that we have now

                  Ever wonder where "short term profits over all else" came from? It didn't used to be that focusing on short term profits was that viable a strategy.

                  My take is that society got rid of most of the long term risks and in the process, they got rid of most of the incentive to make good long term decisions.