How does the number of people negatively affected by algorithm compare to the number of people who would be negatively affected by human processor?
I mean, someone could probably write hundreds of similar articles about negative interactions with callous or incompetent human officials. Having dealt with at least an average number of DMV type officials over the years, I can't see that machines could do a whole lot worse.
I do agree with several points of the article though. Let the algorithms be open to public critique. This is democracy and it should lead to improvement (eventually). And of course there should always be recourse to human intervention.
Comments
How does the number of people negatively affected by algorithm compare to the number of people who would be negatively affected by human processor?
I mean, someone could probably write hundreds of similar articles about negative interactions with callous or incompetent human officials. Having dealt with at least an average number of DMV type officials over the years, I can't see that machines could do a whole lot worse.
I do agree with several points of the article though. Let the algorithms be open to public critique. This is democracy and it should lead to improvement (eventually). And of course there should always be recourse to human intervention.