I take from this that there needs to be some flexibility in how the results of the algorithms are applied. I also find the first example in the article unconvincing as a real mistake. It states that Robert McDaniel had:
a misdemeanor conviction and several arrests on a variety of offenses—drug possession, gambling, domestic violence
then it seems like it's calling the algorithms a mistake that
branded Robert McDaniel a likely criminal
Maybe I"m just sheltered, but a history of arrests, drug possession, and domestic violence tell me that the person is probably a criminal (though whether that rises to the level of bring one of Chicago's top 420 criminals I can't say).
Comments
I take from this that there needs to be some flexibility in how the results of the algorithms are applied. I also find the first example in the article unconvincing as a real mistake. It states that Robert McDaniel had:
then it seems like it's calling the algorithms a mistake that
Maybe I"m just sheltered, but a history of arrests, drug possession, and domestic violence tell me that the person is probably a criminal (though whether that rises to the level of bring one of Chicago's top 420 criminals I can't say).
but a history of arrests, drug possession, and domestic violence tell me that the person is probably a criminal
Reading more about Robert McDaniel, he apparently made the list because one of his childhood friends was shot and killed: http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2013-08-21/news/ct-met-he...
You're not looking at convictions? Just arrests?
Yeah, it says "a" conviction, and we all are (or should be) aware that arrests occur much more frequently than guilt.