[aneemzic]

I don't agree that this has anything to do with political objectives. It's a question of ethics. My domain knowledge is irrelevant, the ML Modelling aspect is irrelevant. The discussion was specifically around whether it's ok to include inherent traits when determining the credit worthiness of an individual.

If you think it is, that's fine. We might as well just taking the same approach to crime, and start locking individuals up or not extending job offers, NOT because they've done a single thing wrong, but simply because they're statistically more likely to.

[zajio1am]

> We might as well just taking the same approach to crime, and start locking individuals up or not extending job offers,

The main difference is that people have right to trial and to be considered innocent until proven guilty. But there is no 'right to credit'. Credit is fundamentally two-party contract.

Also there is shared limit to risk, forcing creditors to take more risk with some people means they may not take that risk in other cases (not giving credit to someone who would be marked lower risk with more informed decision) or forcing them to raise credit cost to everybody.

[hntrader]

Making the statistical model for E(claims) worse on purpose by excluding relevant features (e.g. inherent traits) is political. The insurers have no choice since the ethical views of the majority are hoisted upon them through politics. The causal path has its roots in an ethical conversation that has played out in public, but this has mediated itself through politics/legislation.

The crime analogy is inappropriate. Insurance is a private voluntary arrangement between two consenting entities. Convictions on the other hand are an involuntary imposition on an unwilling party.

One could make the argument that allowing inherent traits in the pricing of insurance is the less authoritarian and more utilitarian option, since it is less forceful state interference in private business and leads to more accurate claims pricing and less subsidisation of insurance for person A by person B. Your prison sentencing analogy on the other hand implies more force, which is why I don't view it as a valid analogy.

The ethical argument can go either way depending on the axioms we pick a priori. If we pick Libertarian deontological axioms, then the ethical choice is to allow inherent traits into the model. If we pick racial equity deontological axioms, then we get another conclusion.

[numpad0]

> It's a question of ethics.

Which is an important thing that isn’t math.