How about qualifying it with what the problem is? e.g., "opaquely biased algorithms"
-
-
Replying to @mattblaze @zeynep
The problem isn't the algorithm part, it's the opaque bias part, and that's where the emphasis should be.
1 reply 0 retweets 3 likes -
Replying to @mattblaze @zeynep
Also, in some cases, the problem may not even be the algorithm itself, but rather the data it was trained with.
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @mattblaze
the way it's used now denotes the whole process. I avoided the term for long, and then found can't speak about topic in public.
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @zeynep @mattblaze
Yup. Matt, Zeynep is right. The word has shifted meaning in public discourse, just as "hacker" did.
2 replies 0 retweets 3 likes -
Replying to @SteveBellovin @zeynep
I'm not sure that's it's shifted. This usage is quite new, and it's only be used by a relatively small elite.
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @mattblaze @SteveBellovin
... which means that people
@zeynep are in a position to introduce a better alternative.1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @mattblaze @zeynep
I don't think so, but I've long been a descriptivist, not a prescriptivist, when it comes to language.
2 replies 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @SteveBellovin @zeynep
The problem is it's genuinely confusing. Are we objecting to the use of an algorithm per se, or properties of it?
2 replies 0 retweets 1 like -
... sometimes it's one, and sometimes it's the other. Need distinct terms.
2 replies 0 retweets 1 like
I'm objecting to the idea that these processes are "neutral", also that it's just programmer bias seeping in.
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.