[mc32]

This is a good thing --an algorithm with up to a 30 error rate is unreliable. One hopes this scrutiny will lead to development of more dependable and trustworthy algorithms. Also hopeful politicians don't have the ability to tweak things in order to fit their agendas.

For example an algorithm is too good at detecting which gov't employee is stealing from the public. Or it tells them they should decrease fines in some area to get better results --but that would affect their budget adversely, etc.

[candiodari]

This is an unrealistic law that doesn't matter. It sounds good, but it's futile. If this taskforce takes the decision that an algorithm that is working is unacceptable (which we all know they'll do on the worst possible basis - publicity), then what happens ?

They'll pause the algorithm ? Replace it ? They can't do that ...

The issue is that once you automate something you can't unautomate it without providing the workforce necessary. Because in nearly all cases a bad automated algorithm will far outperform 1% of the required workforce in humans, that's how algorithms win. Not because they beat humans, they don't. They win because they actually take action in 100% of the cases, whatever that number is. A dumb algorithm taking action 100.000 times can easily beat a very hardworking human that takes 100 smart decisions in a lot of cases. So that will be tens to hundreds of people in easy cases, and thousands to tens of thousands in bad cases, and this is New York, easily the size of a decent country. So it'll always be "we need to pause this NOW !", "OK, no problem at all, that'll be $15 million per hour. Under what budget item do we fit this ?" "Erm .... How about you just make it look like it's paused ?"

Keep in mind stopping automation doesn't even just cause damage directly, it will also cause overloading costs onto other departments and even onto private companies. Often in surprising ways. Algorithms respond quickly, under nearly all circumstances, at any time. You wouldn't believe how efficient this makes interacting with organizations. Pausing automation has an enormous and accumulating cost, making the decision impossible.

Also algorithms don't solve corruption (they may make it easier to track though, although there are ways around that).

[matt4077]

> which we all know they'll do on the worst possible basis - publicity

That's such a cynical, nihilistic way of looking at government. I can only guess people arrive at it after being exposed to a rather superficial look at governments' work over a long time.

In reality, the vast bureaucracy that is government takes thousands of actions every single day, almost all of which are uncontroversial. They work hard to establish procedures minimising uncertainty. The work is far more transparent than any private organisations'. And all decisions are subject to judicial review–with the judiciary having its own, long tradition of thoughtful deliberation and even-handedness.

As one example, the list at https://www.regulations.gov/searchResults?rpp=25&so=DESC&sb=... shows some recent (federal) actions. Note that this list is only the tip of the iceberg, with the most controversial administration in modern history. Yet it is dominated by "Class E Airspace; Revocations: Eaton Rapids, MI" and other items of rather low publicity value.

[candiodari]

Yeah - I've consulted for years for about 4 governments, going from department to department. I still think I'm far too hopeful. The whole thing is utterly corrupt, the politicians running things have utter disdain for actually running things (to the point that they have their security agents shove them aside sometimes - seen that happen). To say that the vast majority of the government - both politicians and bureaucrats - from high to low, everyone, doesn't care about running the place is a complete understatement.

And the government is so full of abuse, it's just disgusting. The thing is even "unintentionally corrupt" as I call it. Regulations that get important things done (especially where it pertains to hiring, consulting, real estate, ...) by just asking it in the right (and "published") location and person. Then, they tell this to 2-3 companies and the rest have to figure it out on their own. Then, of course, they switch to actually corrupt, and change where they need to ask a few months later.

[CPLX]

This is patent nonsense. There is absolutely no fundamental rule that requires that there be unaccountable opaque algorithms making consequential decisions about the lives of citizens, and the burden of proof is on you to show there is.

What specific use cases match your description? What is an example of a "case" in your third paragraph above?

[pjc50]

Taking bad decisions faster is not an improvement. Especially when it's being used to wrongly convict people.

> takes the decision that an algorithm that is working is unacceptable

"Unacceptable" == "not working".