Hacker News Reader

Comment by laydn | Hacker News Reader

Slightly off topic: The nature of the competition is a bit worrying to me.

They're essentially letting an algorithm decide which dogs have the best chance of adoption and which to euthanize, aren't they?

View on HN

Having read the original description of the challenge[1] I don't think you're correct. I think what they're doing is trying to identify the types of photos and descriptions that are successful so they can do more of them. Like: Do you want the dog bounding through a field or do you want them snuggling up on someone's lap in the photo? That sort of stuff.

I mean, you're right, you could just run the tool, find the ones that are unlikely to get adopted and euthanize them, but I don't think there's any reason to believe that's actually their intention.

[1]:https://www.kaggle.com/c/petfinder-adoption-prediction/overv...

THIS! Drop the "slightly"... I can't understand how people focus so much on the competition cheating, and so less on "wait, wtf are they doing here"... I mean, even if they are not deciding whether to euthanize or not based on this, you're still building a system that introduces "good looks" as a factor in a life-and-death decision regarding a living being.

It's not hard to jump from this a system that would use your facebook file to grant or deny medical health coverage or a similar life-and-death thing. Shift the Overton-window a little, push is a few notches further, and you're re-inventing phrenology with deep learning...

This is bone-chilling! I mean the fact that so many people overlook this...

The euthanization is already there. Machine learning can't justify what economy requires. The only thing machine learning promises here (and you're free to doubt the effect) is to improve adoption rates and thus reduce euthanization.

Of course this is highly problematic when applied to humans. But to be clear, some humans are already judged by models (transparent ones so far) in live and death decisions. That's how organ transplant decisions are taken. The candidates with the best prospects get the scarce organs. Similarily, when looking at populations, decisions that protect many are often taken in full knowledge of the danger to a few. Vaccination for example.

Resource optimization problems mix badly with absolute morals.

Are you sure? Aren't they just trying to show the most appropriate pets to the most appropriate people in order to make adoptions quicker? Where do you read the euthanization part?

Unfortunately, most pet shelters get more pets than their facilities are able to handle. Unless they're a no-kill shelter (in order to be considered one they need to kill <10%), they will need to euthanize in order to make room for incoming animals. This is as opposed to promoting adoption, fostering, etc. An algorithm that can prematurely decide what animals will be adopted, or have the best chance to be, can create a perverse incentive to euthanize early the less optimal pets.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com