Isn't this the sort of thing humans are supposed to be bad at but AI should be good at?
An automated justice system wouldn't be biased by human prejudice, ignorance or fear. It doesn't get tired, doesn't feel pain or pity or remorse. It would be able to impartially and accurately process vast amounts of data - far more than a human, and the actions of the drones could be completely auditable. Drones won't lie on the stand to protect their fellow drones, or tamper with evidence.
You could walk down the street surrounded by police drones and be confident that you're not being profiled based on racist or religious bigotry, but pure mathematics and statistics. In every conceivable way, an armed drone with a license to kill is safer, faster, more reliable than a human. One only has to look at the current justice system in any country to see that humans are simply not capable of properly judging the motives of, or punishing, other humans in any reasonable way.
People will simply have to accept that the day will come when human-applied justice is viewed with the same ridicule and scorn that witch-burning is today... as the vicious, superstitious barbarism of an ignorant past.
Those articles show that a completely inhuman intelligence, with no intrinsic biases of it's own, reproduces the conclusions that allegedly come from human bias. I.e., it turns out that (sometimes) racism and sexism are useful and predictive heuristics.
Of course, being in the NYTimes and Salon, they need to obfuscate this point and appeal to standard mood affiliation.
Since you claim that "racism and sexism are useful and predictive heuristics," does that mean mainstream society should accept/tolerate/promote such belief systems? Who is it exactly that you think would find these heuristics useful?
Also, describing the results of any code/program written by a human as a "completely inhuman intelligence" is a tenuous claim at best.
I'm not taking any normative position. I'm simply pointing out that the implicit assumption underlying lots of modern beliefs - that racism/other evil beliefs lead to factually wrong beliefs - is being challenged by "racist" and "sexist" machine learning algorithms.
If you want to make normative arguments, go ahead. My first principles tend to be very individualistic (I view individual humans as being the sole carriers of moral consideration), so our normative claims will likely disagree.
Also, describing the results of any code/program written by a human as a "completely inhuman intelligence" is a tenuous claim at best.
Clearly you've never written such systems. If they behaved remotely the way humans think my job (building them and making them usable by humans) would be vastly easier.
I understand the difference between a normative claim and a positive claim. You might not be taking a normative position explicitly, but your distaste is showing through: "allegedly come from," "obfuscate this point". I'd like to see where you go with this (both your distaste and positive statements) -- even if what you're saying is accurate/factual, what implications does that have for society at large? For the intersection of machine learning and society?
Appeals to authority and accomplishments aside, I don't need to have written such systems to understand, infer, and conclude things about aspects of their behavior. My point is this: something created by humans cannot be, by definition, inhuman. Two methodologies, the "human approach" and the "ML approach", might have radically different steps but come to the same conclusions. It would appear from your comments that you are OK with these conclusions ("An unbiased methodology produced these results, therefore, it's OK!"). Are you morally satisfied by the conclusions discussed above? Do the results of "such systems" influence your satisfaction?
No, they show that a completely inhuman intelligence, designed to learn to show humans what they want to see, can successfully cater to human bias. For example, the Salon article talks about Google AdSense showing ads for arrest records when someone searches for black-sounding names but not white-sounding ones. Google are quite open about the fact that they choose the ads they think are most likely to be clicked. So if people are more likely to click on ads for arrest records when looking for information on a black person, that completely inhuman intelligence, with no intrinsic biases, will happily cater to their racism. That you argue this somehow means racism is a useful, predictive heuristic of anything other than how racists act says a lot.
Another example from the article shows that men are more likely than women to click on an ad for a high income job, or that low income people are going to click on ads for high interest loans. These are stereotypes that seem to be confirmed by the algorithm.
The core question - do you believe the problem will be fixed by better machine learning algorithms? Going back to the current example, do you believe that a Bayes-optimal machine learning algorithm for predicting criminal behavior will be "unbiased" (in the sense of social justice, not in the sense of statistics)?
Or, more concretely, do you believe that the only problem that mtgx and smtddr are complaining about is that our ML algorithms aren't good enough and that maybe we need deep learning instead of random forests?
That's like saying Google search is "objective" because it's "just software". Google engineers write how the software will act...In the same way, drones will act how the humans tell them to act in various scenarios.
When we get super-human AI, then maybe we can hope for that.
Wasn't that the premise of the most recent Captain America movie? Use the computers to determine where threats were, then have the flying aircraft carriers eliminate those threats.
We can't outsource our moral imperative to computers, no matter how much we don't want to have the conversation about actual causes of crime and incarceration in the US...
An automated justice system wouldn't be biased by human prejudice, ignorance or fear. It doesn't get tired, doesn't feel pain or pity or remorse. It would be able to impartially and accurately process vast amounts of data - far more than a human, and the actions of the drones could be completely auditable. Drones won't lie on the stand to protect their fellow drones, or tamper with evidence.
You could walk down the street surrounded by police drones and be confident that you're not being profiled based on racist or religious bigotry, but pure mathematics and statistics. In every conceivable way, an armed drone with a license to kill is safer, faster, more reliable than a human. One only has to look at the current justice system in any country to see that humans are simply not capable of properly judging the motives of, or punishing, other humans in any reasonable way.
People will simply have to accept that the day will come when human-applied justice is viewed with the same ridicule and scorn that witch-burning is today... as the vicious, superstitious barbarism of an ignorant past.