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

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

We Are Eating the Earth - Michael Grunwald *****

If I'm honest, I assumed this would be another 'oh dear, we're horrible people who are terrible to the environment', worthily dull title - so I was surprised to be gripped from early on. The subject of the first chunk of the book is one man, Tim Searchinger's fight to take on the bizarrely unscientific assumption that held sway that making ethanol from corn, or burning wood chips instead of coal, was good for the environment. The problem with this fallacy, which seemed to have taken in the US governments, the EU, the UK and more was the assumption that (apart from carbon emitted in production) using these 'grown' fuels was carbon neutral, because the carbon came out of the air. The trouble is, this totally ignores that using land to grow fuel means either displacing land used to grow food, or displacing land that had trees, grass or other growing stuff on it. The outcome is that when we use 'E10' petrol (with 10% ethanol), or electricity produced by ...

Battle of the Big Bang - Niayesh Afshordi and Phil Harper *****

It's popular science Jim, but not as we know it. There have been plenty of popular science books about the big bang and the origins of the universe (including my own Before the Big Bang ) but this is unique. In part this is because it's bang up to date (so to speak), but more so because rather than present the theories in an approachable fashion, the book dives into the (sometimes extremely heated) disputed debates between theoreticians. It's still popular science as there's no maths, but it gives a real insight into the alternative viewpoints and depth of feeling. We begin with a rapid dash through the history of cosmological ideas, passing rapidly through the steady state/big bang debate (though not covering Hoyle's modified steady state that dealt with the 'early universe' issues), then slow down as we get into the various possibilities that would emerge once inflation arrived on the scene (including, of course, the theories that do away with inflation). ...

Why Nobody Understands Quantum Physics - Frank Verstraete and Céline Broeckaert **

It's with a heavy heart that I have to say that I could not get on with this book. The structure is all over the place, while the content veers from childish remarks to unexplained jargon. Frank Versraete is a highly regarded physicist and knows what he’s talking about - but unfortunately, physics professors are not always the best people to explain physics to a general audience and, possibly contributed to by this being a translation, I thought this book simply doesn’t work. A small issue is that there are few historical inaccuracies, but that’s often the case when scientists write history of science, and that’s not the main part of the book so I would have overlooked it. As an example, we are told that Newton's apple story originated with Voltaire. Yet Newton himself mentioned the apple story to William Stukeley in 1726. He may have made it up - but he certainly originated it, not Voltaire. We are also told that â€˜Galileo discovered the counterintuitive law behind a swinging o...