> we've seen ways AI can allow discrimination through the back door.
Do you have any concrete examples of these, in particular where the use of statistics or AI enables more discrimination than using human decisions?
Do you have any concrete examples of these, in particular where the use of statistics or AI enables more discrimination than using human decisions?
>> we've seen ways AI can allow discrimination through the back door.
> Do you have any concrete examples of these, in particular where the use of statistics or AI enables more discrimination than using human decisions?
Here's a concrete example:
https://towardsdatascience.com/racist-data-human-bias-is-inf...
> An AI program called COMPAS has been used by a Wisconsin court to predict the likelihood that convicts will reoffend. An investigative piece by ProPublica last year found that this risk assessment system was biased against black prisoners, incorrectly flagging them as being more likely to reoffend than white prisoners (45% to 24% respectively). These predictions have led to defendants being handed longer sentences, as in the case of Wisconsin v. Loomis.
Also, I'd dispute your injection of the "more racist than humans" framing (which is also moving the goalposts a bit). The problem with racist algorithms isn't necessarily their "degree of racism" but the fact that they mask very real racism behind a veneer of false computerized "objectivity."
Depending on who you talk to these algorithms either are or are not discriminating against protected classes "through the back door".
If the government believes that credit risk systems cannot use 'race' as a factor, then they ought to reaffirm that.
They shouldn't be restricting broad use of a technology.
Just like when a clerk tells you "The computer won't let me."
Now, there's a law against that.
In the future, there will be an AI system to approve or deny mortgages, based off of historical training data. Since that data includes the redlining era, the AI will learn to make racist decisions.
Most people do not understand how it is possible for a computer to be racist. (Other than against all humans like in Terminator 2.) This is why it's "through the back door", because it's not obvious how it's possible or where it's coming from.
This is a crude assumption.
AI researchers are well aware of these potentialities, and you'd (or the government) would have to provide evidence that these systems are racist before banning them.
The basic premise you're making is: "The world is unfair -> AI uses data from the real world -> the AI is racist".
Insurance fiduciaries already use an incredible amount of 'training data' in their work, and we don't have hugely material problems there.
It doesn't really matter if there is "less" discrimination without AI. While AI is not there, there is no discrimination from AI. If there is some after introducing AI, then it's a problem with AI.