Say DHH got 10K USD. Then his wife got 5K USD which is really low for someone with the assets she can likely claim. But let's say he got 1M USD and his wife got a mere 50K USD...kind of a different story then.
Banks do underwriting in various ways. When I (white male) got an AMEX student card in college 25 years ago, I had a $3k limit. MBNA and Citi gave me $35,000 and $20,000, respectively.
I doubt very seriously that Apple would call Goldman and ask them to give some people special treatment. I’m not saying that Apple wouldn’t do that because it isn’t fair. They wouldn’t waste their time doing it.
Therefore, its possible that DHH has some ultra-premium cards with 100K limits or whatever, while his wife does not, and despite having similar credit limits "the algorithm" says "hey this guy has huge credit limits and an Amex Black card, we better give him a huge limit too."
This is bending over backwards to make up a "certain people are singled out for better treatment" story just so you don't have to admit to yourself that a "certain people are singled out for worse treatment" story is at least as plausible.
A lot of the technology we produce is fundamentally biased by our own perceptions, and in ML case most especially by the input data. The danger is a self-perpetuation of already established systemic bias. Given access to good credit is key towards economic mobility that can have massive ongoing implications. The fact that they're saying "It's just what the algorithm produces" should be triggering huge alarm bells, regardless of the veracity of any of his other claims.
I don’t think it’s really fair to expect a C-level exec to know the low-level details of how creditworthiness is determined. I’m sure they can paint in broad strokes, but expecting a detailed answer for why a specific person got approved for a certain amount is a bit of a reach.
In the case of Woz having a higher limit than his wife, I’m sure it boils down to the usual stuff like, oh I don’t know, not being a cofounder of a massively successful corporation and therefore being filthy rich for the last 30+ years.
There might very well be a case to be made here but not likely between two people who are so very different in financial terms (or were for most of their lives). Your credit score isn’t something that changes the instant you get married to someone who’s rich.
Now that's probably cause for concern too, of course. Imagine if you actually saw the massive personal data trove that has been collected on you which is being used to make these decisions. Sends a shiver up the spine doesn't it?
That isn't what concerns me. I wouldn't expect the CEO of Apple to explain the inner workings of any of their algorithms. That's not their function. What scares me is that people who program or specify these things don't know how the heck decisions are made.
From credit decisions to self-driving cars, we are trusting black boxes with no idea why they make specific decisions.
No, I wouldn’t be concerned in the slightest - I’d just get a card from somewhere else.
And wow I read the rest of it. Woman this women that.. and yet no idea where he’s getting any evidence this issue has to do with gender.
I mean maybe they made an unfair calculation for her, why is it all of a sudden clearly a case of gender discrimination.
Either he’s having a tantrum or trying to virtue signal for some unknown reason very hard.
That aside, his evidence is limited because Apple and GS both refuse to share the rationale behind their credit decisions. It's an algorithm. So he's basing it on what he does know.