pedromsilvapt

"In 2013 we estimate that 3.2 billion individuals – more than two thirds of adults in the world – have wealth below 10 000 dollars."[1] In total they also estimate that those 3.2 billion individuals have a combined wealth of 7.3 trillion dollars.

So, unless you're implying that everyone who has "a checking account" has more than 7.3 trillion dollars, sorry, it's just not the same.

I'm not denying that there is extreme inequality between poor in America and poor in Africa or India.

But let's not make false comparisons between having a banking account and being in the top 30 wealthiest individuals. Having a banking account is not the same as having 7 trillion dollars in wealth.

[1] https://publications.credit-suisse.com/tasks/render/file/?fi... (year 2013, page 21)

3 billion combined? Because that's what the parent comment was implying. Your point hardly seems like a fair comparison.

Yes. Envy is a core human trait as well. Some people envy their neighbor's car. Stealing it is still forbidden by law.

Likewise, disallowing envy (or selfishness) by itself is not possible, but making illegal the actions that result from those feelings can (and sometimes should) be outlawed.

IMHO, that doesn't matter much. Algorithms shouldn't be above the law. If a company creates an algorithm, it needs to make sure it follows the law. Companies use this excuse on ML we don't know why it is doing what it is doing is BS. Machine Learning, despite what the popular media might like to say, is not sentient AI. It does not have free will. It does what it is trained to do. It is predictable. It is testable. I understand that AI allows companies to chew through quantities of data that would cost thousands of human operators' salaries otherwise. But if the company gets to reap the profits of the AI, then it needs to take responsibility for it too.