| Seems two things are at play here, the model, and how the model is
used. The article was quite dry, refreshingly analytical and not
overly critical of the expected ground truth that the poor are
punished for being poor. It's great these models are legible and open. Looks like civil service
doing a job as well as possible. The other half of the story is how, in practice these models are
interpreted and what actions follow. Are further modification of the
model a direct result of that and how iterative is it? Doing that aggressively changes a bare "model" into an investigative
tool, not simply a thresholding utility. Sorry if I missed it, but I
don't remember reading anything about how it feeds back. But what I
did read was unsettling - entering people's homes at random, quizzing
neighbours, pretty fascist stuff. am I wrong? I guess my point is that if you look at a bare data set, or even an
algorithm, sure you can probably infer a lot about biases and intent
that might be built in, but you can't see the bigger model within
which this functions - and that's the real story. Is it a persecutory investigative tool? Like Hicks said we could use cruise missiles to drop food into the
mouths of hungry people... a benefit system that could identify people
who are struggling (of which crime is an indicator), and, I dunno,
give them some money and help? That would be preachy, and quite
possible imho. |
This is how the system should function, but then you get public outcry when the worst of us are found abusing the system of subsidies while perpetrating their crimes. I think specifically of Marc Dutroux here.
On a side note, after the mass influx of Ukrainian refugees and wide public support, it is much more obvious that those in the greatest need tend to demand less, not more.