bbig3831

There was a Washington Post article and arXiv paper on this topic several months ago. [1][2] The problem boils down to the definition of bias. Northpointe, the company that owns COMPAS, says the algorithm treats black and white defendants equally, which is true. Others claim that its predictions for blacks are wrong more often than for whites, which is also true. The main point of the paper is that you can't have your cake and eat it too. If you don't want to consider race, then the predictions will be wrong more often for blacks. If you don't want the predictions to be wrong more often for blacks, the algorithm has to consider race. (I'd recommend the articles for a better explanation.)

In my mind, the ownership of the software is what's troubling. First, it's not public, so nobody can look at the guts. And second, the Loomis decision constructs even more walls around the software. It's hard for people to critically examine and change something they can't see.

[1] https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/monkey-cage/wp/2016/10/1... [2] https://arxiv.org/pdf/1609.05807.pdf

Exactly what I thought. Lots of not-so-famous scientists didn't work long hours either. This is just another case of the "Halo Effect".[1] Let's select a group based on an outcome (i.e. being a famous scientist) and then work backwards to find similarities that fit a narrative.

[1] https://www.amazon.com/Halo-Effect-Business-Delusions-Manage...

This article is built on sand. First off, Summers doesn't provide any evidence that his linear trend is a valid predictor. Coupled with his history of predictions, that should be a red flag to anyone reading this. If you're interested, you should read about his suggestion that California deregulate its energy market during the rolling blackouts caused by Enron's manipulation of the energy supply. Similarly, he supported the rapid privatization of former Soviet bloc countries in the 1990s without considering that former party members would consolidate resources and wealth among themselves. Lo and behold, Russia is now ruled by an oligarchy.

Second, not even the links he provides support his points. The one to the BLS shows the number of cashiers is expected to grow by 2%, not decline as he states.

Third, "to the extent that non-work is contagious, it is likely to grow exponentially rather than at a linear rate." No citation given. Nothing to substantiate this claim. Again, given Larry's history, I'd advise against taking him at his word. He also cites falling marriage rates as contributors, but only links to evidence of the rates falling, NOT to evidence of a causal effect of declining marriage rates on employment.

Finally, seeing as this [1] was posted on HN today, Larry seems to be living in a world where he doesn't read the news. Companies still need workers.

It's drivel like this written by people like Larry that erode my trust in the media.

[1]U.S. Companies Turn to German Vocational Training Model to Fill Jobs Gap: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12584606