Often "algorithms" gets used as the bad guy for processes which are, strictly speaking, algorithms, but which are opaque, have strong societal relevance, and are obviously-computer-adjacent, for the purpose of criticizing the results of those processes.
-
-
A spreadsheet is not the same though. It lends itself to interpretation unlike some other algorithms (machine learning models like random forests and NNs) that may be used.
-
Interpretability is generally a red herring in these discussions because a) people are broadly wrong that non-interpretable algorithms are being used, as a statement of engineering fact and b) what they really want is external legibility, which they won’t get in any event.
- 1 more reply
New conversation -
-
-
Great way of phrasing this. I keep explaining this to people as well: algorithms has replaced "bureaucracy" and "process," in many contexts, essentially, and people have forgotten that we used to argue that processes also could not be modified or made transparent, supposedly.
-
Interesting, bureaucracy *is* algorithms, except executed by mindless paper-pushing humans instead of silicon. Bureaucracy can't flex to accomodate human-world exceptions, the same way silicon algorithms can't. That's why it's been hated for so long.
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
Oh, it's much better than a spreadsheet. There's a sweet CRM behind a huge amount of college admissions: Slate by Technolutions.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
Or... they actually agree with said discrimination.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
I agree with your underlying point, and have been vocal about people's mistaken preference for artisanal, free-range, handmade bias over "algorithmic" bias in the past
- 2 more replies
New conversation
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.