Pedro Domingos

if pt is "proven in law", I think (a) that's not even true (cf FB/housing); (b) this shd make us ask ourselves: what is broken abt the law?

if pt is "proven in the literature" then it would be nice to know which aspects of the *massive* amount of published results you disagree w.

Nothing about the original statement is true, even allowing for specialized definitions.

yeah, I'm curious about what was actually meant/intended

I meant discrimination proved in court where the culprit was the ML algorithm, not the data or the people using it. Do you know of any?

Algorithms can't be tried in court. No algorithm is racist or sexist in design, it is always a fxn of data or implementation. You know this.

By "culprit" I mean "cause", not "guilty party". People/data/hand-coded algorithms can be biased. ML algorithms can't. Many don't know this.

Every ML alg I've worked with over-predicts the majority class. In many classes, that leads to discrimination against human minorities