Skip to main content

More than a Glitch - Meredith Broussard ***

In some ways this is a less effective version of Cathy O'Neil's Weapons of Math Destruction with an overlay of identity politics. 

Meredith Broussard usefully identifies the ways in which AI systems incorporate bias - sometimes directly in the systems, at other times in the unjustified ways that they are used. We see powerful examples, for example, of the hugely problematic crime prediction systems where it's entirely clear that these AI systems simply should not be used. A useful pointer is what a 'white collar' crime prediction system would do (and why it doesn't really exist). We get similar examples from education, ability issues, gender rights and medical applications.

What I'd hoped would make the difference from earlier books were solutions, when Broussard brings in the concept of 'public interest technology' and outlines a 'potential reboot'. Again, there is some interesting material, though it can seem to be in conflict with other parts of the book. Earlier Broussard argues powerfully that it's not enough to fix bias in AI systems, because the systems have no understanding of the circumstances - this will always need human input. But under public interest technology, we are told 'algorithmic auditing shows great promise for decreasing bias and fixing or preventing algorithmic harms'. Algorithmic auditing is doing exactly what was said earlier wasn't really possible - 'examining an algorithm for bias or unfairness, then evaluating and revising it to make it better.' In the end, this is the kind of problem where the devil is in the detail - and there is little evidence here of solutions that are aware of this, just as proved the case with the way that GDPR in the EU adds layers of bureaucracy without doing the job.

The book sometimes make statements as fact that don't seem backed up. In part this is because it is so intensely US-focused. There's no attempt to look at different cultural settings. So, for example, early on Broussard makes the statement 'People also consistently overestimate how much of the world is made up of people like themselves.' Yet 'the world' is not the US. Data from the UK, for instance, shows consistently that white people significantly underestimate how much of the UK population is white.

The content sometimes sets things against each other that either don't ring true or don't really go together. For example, talking about a shoplifting incident involving the theft of watches worth $3,800, Broussard states 'It's not a good idea to prosecute shoplifting that is this low in dollar value.' Really? To a small business, losses like that can be catastrophic. We are then told that retailers are partly to blame for shoplifting by introducing self-checkouts to reduce costs. Really? But shops that sell $3,800 worth of watches rarely use self-checkouts - and for many customers, self-checkouts are very useful. Why should they be disadvantaged because it makes it a bit easier for criminals?

Without doubt an interesting book, but it doesn't add much that is useful to the discussion that hasn't already been said.

Hardback:   
Kindle:  
Using these links earns us commission at no cost to you
Review by Brian Clegg - See all Brian's online articles or subscribe to a weekly email free here
Labels:

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

It's On You - Nick Chater and George Loewenstein *****

Going on the cover you might think this was a political polemic - and admittedly there's an element of that - but the reason it's so good is quite different. It shows how behavioural economics and social psychology have led us astray by putting the focus way too much on individuals. A particular target is the concept of nudges which (as described in Brainjacking ) have been hugely over-rated. But overall the key problem ties to another psychological concept: framing. Huge kudos to both Nick Chater and George Loewenstein - a behavioural scientist and an economics and psychology professor - for having the guts to take on the flaws in their own earlier work and that of colleagues, because they make clear just how limited and potentially dangerous is the belief that individuals changing their behaviour can solve large-scale problems. The main thesis of the book is that there are two ways to approach the major problems we face - an 'i-frame' where we focus on the individual ...
Post a Comment
Read more

Introducing Artificial Intelligence – Henry Brighton & Howard Selina ****

It is almost impossible to rate these relentlessly hip books – they are pure marmite*. The huge  Introducing  … series (a vast range of books covering everything from Quantum Theory to Islam), previously known as …  for Beginners , puts across the message in a style that owes as much to Terry Gilliam and pop art as it does to popular science. Pretty well every page features large graphics with speech bubbles that are supposed to emphasise the point. Funnily,  Introducing Artificial Intelligence  is both a good and bad example of the series. Let’s get the bad bits out of the way first. The illustrators of these books are very variable, and I didn’t particularly like the pictures here. They did add something – the illustrations in these books always have a lot of information content, rather than being window dressing – but they seemed more detached from the text and rather lacking in the oomph the best versions have. The other real problem is that...
Post a Comment
Read more

The Laws of Thought - Tom Griffiths *****

In giving us a history of attempts to explain our thinking abilities, Tom Griffiths demonstrates an excellent ability to pitch information just right for the informed general reader.  We begin with Aristotelian logic and the way Boole and others transformed it into a kind of arithmetic before a first introduction of computing and theories of language. Griffiths covers a surprising amount of ground - we don't just get, for instance, the obvious figures of Turing, von Neumann and Shannon, but the interaction between the computing pioneers and those concerned with trying to understand the way we think - for example in the work of Jerome Bruner, of whom I confess I'd never heard.  This would prove to be the case with a whole host of people who have made interesting contributions to the understanding of human thought processes. Sometimes their theories were contradictory - this isn't an easy field to successfully observe - but always they were interesting. But for me, at least, ...
Post a Comment
Read more