Pedro Domingos

1) If they do, it's not their fault. 2) Any piece of regulation that uses the word "algorithms" can be improved by rewriting it without it.

Agreed that "algorithm" means nothing since it means everything -- but, question: It's not *who's* fault? Do you mean the textbook? (You don't mean the algorithm, do you?)

Yes, the algorithm, of course! Do algorithms have racial biases? Does logistic regression? What's hard to understand about this?

Okay, so would it be fair to state your point in this way: "If an algorithm defies an ethical standard, it is the human deployers' of the algorithm's fault, not the algorithm's."

No. When an algorithm finds a correlation you don’t like, don’t blame the messenger.

To be clear, by messenger, you mean the algorithm, correct?

Yes.

Okay, then I'm still trying to discern your specific point - which so far sounds very broad. How is it not, "If an algorithm defies an ethical standard it's the human deployers' fault, not the algorithm's"? Or is it, "Every sound/established correlation is fair game to act on"?