How would you define 'fair'? I've a few examples, gathered from being alive and hearing what other people think for a few decades.
1. It's fair to punish someone else if you let another off the hook
2. It's fair to treat someone more harshly if you don't like what they've done
3. It's fair to turn the other cheek because they're a friend
4. It's fair to treat someone differently because of where they came from or their skin colour
5. It's fair to give someone a pass because they did you a favour
6. It's fair to be unfair because you owe someone a favour
7. It's unfair to be a victim who doesn't get justice
8. It's unfair to be an innocent person who is prosecuted for someone else's crime
9. It's unfair to not get what you wait
10. It's fair to get what you want
You will find a variation of all of these examples across the world right now.
The point is, fairness is loaded with bias and therefore any algorithm that tries to deal with 'fairness' is going to inherit the bias of those who designed it.
You make really good points.
Life is bizarre and human culture is extremely contradictory and difficult to quantify.
And what's worse our definition of 'fair' maybe advancing just like culture is constantly advancing.
African Americans may have been treated poorly by the algorithm back in the 1700s when they we're considered less than a full person by the legal system for example. And maybe in the future drug offenses may be considered not a big deal.
They call the Constitution a living document.
This algorithm may have to be a living algorithm.
What if it was open source and constantly updated and reviewed to reach consensus?
There would probably also have to be human appeal processes.
I definitely think this is intriguing as a first-level sentencing determination though.
I completely fail to see what's the issue with what OP said, care to explain?
It is completely accurate, algorithms are built by people whom live inmersed on their own temporary and geographically atomized cultures, just look at modern supposed ""unbiased"" algorithms used to ""prevent crime"", it is just racial biases baked in
For context, the issue was, as many posters said, this:
> African Americans may have been treated poorly
On my part, I'm british. "Fucking hell, man!" for me is a way of being exasperated; I was surprised with reading that. It's not a condemnation, it's surprise.
And a phrase containing 'may have' is begging for equivocation, especially when referring to black people as 'african americans' while talking about their treatment.
I see how the parents wording is confusing. IMO, they weren't saying African Americans "may have been treated poorly" in the past (I suspect this is quite uncontentious), they were saying that even this algorithm, now, applied back in the 1700s may not have eliminated bias. Instead, it may have simply applied the prevailing biases emotionlessly. It's hard to see the inequities of your system when you participate in it.
When I read it, as a native speaker, I read "treated poorly by the algorithm" as being a term for the behavior of culture and systems of the time, and not a hypothetical algorithm from the future that took as input the culture of the time and made decisions about fairness.
I think it was the use of "the algorithm" and not "an algorithm" that most affected my reading there - "poorly by an algorithm" comes across, to me, as "poorly by some algorithm", rather than "poorly by _the_ algorithm", implying a specific instance of a thing, already known by the reader or referred back to later, doing it.
Consider "treated poorly by the system" versus "treated poorly by such a system", which has an even clearer connotation, to me.
My first reading as a native speaker was that "the algorithm" meant "the Man". But after several readings, I think he meant that this algorithm would categorize someone who was legally considered less than a citizen as a more likely recidivist. Which is an interesting point. Particularly in the US where there's a notion of illegal immigrants having already broken the law. Would this algorithm consider them to be more likely to be repeat offenders if it were weighted to treat noncitizenship as a factor, or overstaying a visa as a crime? And if so, then why wouldn't it weight slaves as more likely to reoffend. And if it did that, what would stop it from weighting the descendants of slaves the aame way?
I thought the US was somewhat unusual in its lax treatment of illegal immigration. However lying to or sneaking past border officials to enter a country is literally a crime yes (certainly for foreign nationals, and probably not kosher for citizens to do either). Though entering on a visitor visa and overstaying is just a civil violation with a civil penalty (deportation). If a citizen had a record of using false identity documents or trying to evade legally-enforced border crossings, a fair algorithm would presumably have to take that into account just as well.
Well if you enter as a legal visitor through a border checkpoint you give the govt the opportunity to do security checks, restrict import of various things, charge customs taxes. Plus they have an idea you are there. It makes sense that sidestepping some or all of that screening and record-keeping will be treated more harshly.
Yes! Exactly. If humans wrote an algorithm, to determine sentencing of crimes, it's possible that biases and predjudices of the time would be included in the algorithm because they don't realize or don't want to admit that their current ways are unfair.
Much like the constitution did!
But the constitution can be amended to be more fair and so the abstract sentancing algorithm, whatever it may be, would have to be amendable as well.
If you're asking if I took a time machine back to the 1700's to use an imaginary algorithm, to enslave people, I assure you good sir I did not.
This is indeed one of the potential problems with inventing an algorithm to sentance people, as I mentioned before, is that it would be written to match the biases of the time period.
I think what OP meant is "if the algorithm were designed (or perhaps implemented) in the 1700s according to standards of fairness held by those in power at that time, then it might have treated African Americans unfairly (despite being an algorithm)". I'm not a mind reader but that seems to make some sense given the context of the discussion.
> If certain groups of people are being treated poorly in modern times then an algorithm that sentences people would possibly include that bias as well.
I’d even change the word “would” to “will” as that has already occurred time and again.
I think you two are violently agreeing with one another, but misunderstanding one another as well.
1. It's fair to punish someone else if you let another off the hook
2. It's fair to treat someone more harshly if you don't like what they've done
3. It's fair to turn the other cheek because they're a friend
4. It's fair to treat someone differently because of where they came from or their skin colour
5. It's fair to give someone a pass because they did you a favour
6. It's fair to be unfair because you owe someone a favour
7. It's unfair to be a victim who doesn't get justice
8. It's unfair to be an innocent person who is prosecuted for someone else's crime
9. It's unfair to not get what you wait
10. It's fair to get what you want
You will find a variation of all of these examples across the world right now.
The point is, fairness is loaded with bias and therefore any algorithm that tries to deal with 'fairness' is going to inherit the bias of those who designed it.