> In other words, they want to make sure the software doesn't rock the boat. If there's a bias, they want to preserve it so it doesn't look like their algorithms are "weird".
Isn't that what judges do when they follow precedent?
Isn't that what judges do when they follow precedent?
When they follow precedent, they are not matching outcomes to outcomes to avoid looking wierd, they are applying what was previously established as the formal decision rule.
That's a very different thing that attempting to preserve biases that may not even reflect the formally-annoubced decision rules in the cases that produced them, but may represent silent deviations from the formal rules.