Hacker News Reader

If there are intentional cross subsidies than it isn't insurance. The concept behind insurance is to spread risk, not to spread cost. There's value in insurance exactly because there are risks (i.e. the future isn't perfectly predictable). But improving our ability to predict the future is a good thing, not a bad thing. It is true that it would make insurance useless, but insurance is not the only mechanism for subsidizing those in need, in fact it is a pretty terrible mechanism for that, since it only works that way inasmuch as it is imperfect.

The root of your argument seems to be that we need to trick people into helping other people. That seems to be an ultimately futile strategy. Better to really convince them.

Well, Switzerland goes so far as to make all health insurers offer basic insurance to everyone. They can't reject anyone and they can't hike the price. I like that system, though you're right that "insurance" might not be the best word for it.

Redistrubution by trickery, or even by force, might still be better than no redistribution at all. I'm pretty confused about this issue myself, don't have any clear answers.

If everyone is in the same system from birth, then the risk is evenly distributed when everyone pays the same amount.

That's not true. There are actuarially significant risk factors that exist and are known at birth. Think chromosomal defects for example.

Moreover for less dramatic conditions, there are race-based inequalities in our fundamental knowledge of medicine. Diseases that afflict Caucasians for example are far more well studied than minorities in "the west". Moreover, because of the way treatments are tested, knowledge of safety and efficacy on potential treatments is biased against minorities (drug safety studies are largely done by white male college students looking for extra cash). Some people just have 'medical privilege' and the healthcare system perpetuates that.

If we "need to give free stuff to those who are statistically less likely to win in it in competition," we should do it openly, as a transfer, rather than rig every algorithm and, even worse, sabotage our medical knowledge. I certainly want to know about every illness in advance, even if it means abolishing the insurance system.

OTOH, if sickness was 100% predictable, those places with nationalized health care (and therefore predictable costs, some level of centralized control over administration, etc.) could deploy resources precisely where needed with minimal waste. In turn, these savings could be passed on to the taxpayers - reduced taxes, basic income support, take your pick.

To me, such an upside vastly outweighs the "downside" of driving a spike through the heart of the health insurance industry. (This also points out how, if you see a problem with "market-efficient" distribution, perhaps the problem is with applying market principles to everything and not with the machine learning algorithms.)

I think we're in violent agreement.

You can't make the topic of fairness "unnecessarily politicized". Fairness is inherently political. The difference between different people's notions of fairness, justice, and liberty are basically the founding reasons for political disagreements.

If you are asking the question "is this algorithm fair?", you are asking a political question.

Yes. And there is no greater example of unfairness in the US of A than that of racism. For someone to complain that mentioning race "politicises" a discussion requires a willful blindness to reality and often seems like an attempt to avoid any discussion of the topic in any context.

Any discussion of inequality in the modern world that does not explicitly include racism is necessarily deficient.

Health care and income redistribution is not politicized?

>I think mentioning race makes the topic unnecessarily politicized. There are much simpler cases where we don't want to use machine learning algorithms for maximum efficiency gains.

I think the point is so that it can bludgeon home that our work as technologists has serious social implications, and that we can't dodge them, even though this stuff is ridiculously difficult.

>I think mentioning race makes the topic unnecessarily politicized.

How does mentioning race make the topic unnecessarily politicized?

Is there really a strong contingent that believes algorithms that discriminate against people based on their race should be implemented and deployed?

Automated discrimination is pretty frightening and we should avoid implementing such systems. Further, we should be aware it can occur and should do what we can do detect and fix any occurrences.

There is a strong contingent that believes that the risk of you defaulting on a loan should be taken into account in the terms of the loan. There is also the ugly fact that the risk of you defaulting is correlated with race.

Why is that an ugly fact? Of course it's harder to keep up with payments depending on your race. It says nothing about any particular races, it's just a side effect of institutionalize do racism. There are decades of data showing discrimination in almost every aspect of financial life. It would be a miracle if that didn't affect default rates.

Why would the damages caused by institutionalized racism be anything but ugly?