First, I think I over-reacted to automated pricing models (thanks to my buddy Ernie Davis who made me think harder about this). I don’t think immediate reaction to price changes is necessarily odious. I do think it changes the dynamics of price optimization in weird ways, but upon reflection I don’t see how they’d necessarily be bad for the general consumer besides the fact that Amazon will sometimes have weird disruptions much like the flash crashes we’ve gotten used to on Wall Street.
Also, in terms of the question of “accuracy versus discrimination,” I’ve now read the research paper that I believe is under consideration, and it’s more nuanced than my recent blog posts would suggest (thanks to Solon Barocas for help on this one).
In particular, the 2011 paper I referred defines discrimination crudely, whereas this new article allows for different “base rates” of recidivism. To see the different, consider a model that assigns a high risk score 70% of the time to blacks and 50% to whites. Assume that, as a group, blacks recidivate at a 70% rate and whites at a 50% rate. The article I referred to would define this as discriminatory, but the newer paper refers to this as “well calibrated.”
Then the question the article tackles is, can you simultaneously ask for a model to be well-calibrated, to have equal false positive rates for blacks and whites, and to have equal false negative rates? The answer is no, at least not unless you are in the presence of equal “base rates” or a perfect predictor.
- This is still unsurprising. The three above conditions are mathematical constraints, and there’s no reason to expect that you can simultaneously require a bunch of really different constraints. The authors do the math and show that intuition is correct.
- Many of my comments still hold. The most important one is the question of why the base rates for blacks and whites are so different. If it’s because of police practice, at least in part, or overall increased surveillance of black communities, then I’d argue “well-calibrated” is insufficient.
- We need to be putting the science into data science and examining questions like this. In other words, we cannot assume the data is somehow fixed in stone. All of this is a social construct.
This question has real urgency, by the way. New York Governor Cuomo announced yesterday the introduction of recidivism risk scoring systems to modernize bail hearings. This could be great if fewer people waste time in jail pending their hearings or trials, but if the people chosen to stay in prison are chosen on the basis that they’re poor or minority or both, that’s a problem.
There’s a fascinating article on the FT.com (hat tip Jordan Weissmann) today about how algorithms can achieve anti-competitive collusion. Entitled Policing the digital cartels and written by David J Lynch, it profiles a classic cinema poster seller that admitted to setting up algorithms for pricing with other poster sellers to keep prices high.
That sounds obviously illegal, and moreover it took work to accomplish. But not all such algorithmic collusion is necessarily so intentional. Here’s the critical paragraph which explains this issue:
As an example, he cites a German software application that tracks petrol-pump prices. Preliminary results suggest that the app discourages price-cutting by retailers, keeping prices higher than they otherwise would have been. As the algorithm instantly detects a petrol station price cut, allowing competitors to match the new price before consumers can shift to the discounter, there is no incentive for any vendor to cut in the first place.
We also don’t seem to have the legal tools to address this:
“Particularly in the case of artificial intelligence, there is no legal basis to attribute liability to a computer engineer for having programmed a machine that eventually ‘self-learned’ to co-ordinate prices with other machines.
Yesterday I wrote a post about the unsurprising discriminatory nature of recidivism models. Today I want to add to that post with an important goal in mind: we should fix recidivism models, not trash them altogether.
The truth is, the current justice system is fundamentally unfair, so throwing out algorithms because they are also unfair is not a solution. Instead, let’s improve the algorithms and then see if judges are using them at all.
The great news is that the paper I mentioned yesterday has three methods to do just that, and in fact there are plenty of papers that address this question with various approaches that get increasingly encouraging results. Here are brief descriptions of the three approaches from the paper:
- Massaging the training data. In this approach the training data is adjusted so that it has less bias. In particular, the choice of classification is switched for some people in the preferred population from + to -, i.e. from the good outcome to the bad outcome, and there are similar switches for some people in the discriminated population from – to +. The paper explains how to choose these switches carefully (in the presence of continuous scorings with thresholds).
- Reweighing the training data. The idea here is that with certain kinds of models, you can give weights to training data, and with a carefully chosen weighting system you can adjust for bias.
- Sampling the training data. This is similar to reweighing, where the weights will be nonnegative integer values.
In all of these examples, the training data is “preprocessed” so that you can train a model on “unbiased” data, and importantly, at the time of usage, you will not need to know the status of the individual you’re scoring. This is, I understand, a legally a critical assumption, since there are anti-discrimination laws which forbid you to “consider” the race of someone when deciding whether to hire them or so on.
In other words, we’re constrained by anti-discrimination law to not use all the information that might help us avoid discrimination. This constraint, generally speaking, prevents us from doing as good a job as possible.
- We might not think that we need to “remove all the discrimination.” Maybe we stratify the data by violent crime convictions first, and then within each resulting bin we work to remove discrimination.
- We might also use the racial and class discrepancies in recidivism risk rates as an opportunity to experiment with interventions that might lower those discrepancies. In other words, why are there discrepancies, and what can we do to diminish them?
- In other words, I do not claim that this is a trivial process. It will in fact require lots of conversations about the nature of justice and the goals of sentencing. Those are conversations we should have.
- Moreover, there’s the question of balancing the conflicting goals of various stakeholders which makes this an even more complicated ethical question.
A few people have been sending me, via Twitter or email, this unsurprising article about how recidivism risk algorithms are inherently racist.
I say unsurprising because I’ve recently read a 2011 paper by Faisal Kamiran and Toon Calders entitled Data preprocessing techniques for classification without discrimination, which explicitly describes the trade-off between accuracy and discrimination in algorithms in the presence of biased historical data (Section 4, starting on page 8).
In other words, when you have a dataset that has a “favored” group of people and a “discriminated” group of people, and you’re deciding on an outcome that has historically been awarded to the favored group more often – in this case, it would be a low recidivism risk rating – then you cannot expect to maximize accuracy and keep the discrimination down to zero at the same time.
Discrimination is defined in the paper as the difference in percentages of people who get the positive treatment among all people in the same category. So if 50% of whites are considered low-risk and 30% of blacks are, that’s a discrimination score of 0.20.
The paper goes on to show that the trade-off between accuracy and discrimination, which can be achieved through various means, is linear or sub-linear depending on how it’s done. Which is to say, for every 1% loss of discrimination you can expect to lose a fraction of 1% of accuracy.
It’s an interesting paper, well written, and you should take a look. But in any case, what it means in the case of recidivism risk algorithms is that any algorithm that is optimized for “catching the bad guys,” i.e. accuracy, which these algorithms are, and completely ignores the discrepancy between high risk scores for blacks and for whites, can be expected to be discriminatory in the above sense, because we know the data to be biased*.
* The bias is due to the history of heightened scrutiny of black neighborhoods by police which we know as broken windows policing, which makes blacks more likely to be arrested for a given crime, as well as the inherent racism and classism in our justice system itself that was so brilliantly explained out by Michelle Alexander in her book The New Jim Crow, which makes them more likely to be severely punished for a given crime.
Don’t know about you, but I’m sick of New Year’s resolutions, as a concept. They’re flabby goals that we’re meant not only to fail to achieve but to feel bad about personally. No, I didn’t exercise every single day of 2012. No, I didn’t lose 20 pounds and keep it off in 1988.
What’s worst to me is how individual and self-centered they are. They make us focus on how imperfect we are at a time when we should really think big. We don’t have time to obsess over details, people! Just get your coping mechanisms in place and do some heavy lifting, will you?
With that in mind, here are my new-fangled resolutions, which I full intend to keep:
- Let my kitchen get and stay messy so I can get some goddamned work done.
- Read through these papers and categorize them by how they can be used by social justice activists. Luckily the Ford Foundation has offered me a grant to do just this.
- Love the shit out of my kids.
- Keep up with the news and take note of how bad things are getting, who is letting it happen, who is resisting, and what kind of resistance is functional.
- Play Euclidea, the best fucking plane geometry app ever invented.
- Form a cohesive plan for reviving the Left.
- Gain 10 pounds and start smoking.
Now we’re talking, amIright?
Kindly add your 2017 resolutions as well so I’ll know I’m not alone.
My buddy Josh Vekhter is visiting from his Ph.D. program in computer science and told me about a couple of incredibly creepy technological advances that will soon make our previous experience of fake news seem quaint.
First, there’s a way to edit someone’s speech:
Next, there’s a way to edit a video to insert whatever facial expression you want (I blame Pixar on this one):
Put those two technologies together and you’ve got Trump and Putin having an entirely fictitious but believable conversation on video.
Today in my weekly Slate Money podcast I’m discussing the recent lawsuit, brought by the families of the Orlando Pulse shooting victims, against Facebook, Google, and Twitter. They claim the social media platforms aided and abetted the radicalization of the Orlando shooter.
They probably won’t win, because Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act of 1996 protects internet sites from content that’s posted by third parties – in this case, ISIS or its supporters.
The ACLU and the EFF are both big supporters of Section 230, on the grounds that it contributes to a sense of free speech online. I say sense because it really doesn’t guarantee free speech at all, and people are kicked off social media all the time, for random reasons as well as for well-thought out policies.
Here’s my problem with Section 230, and in particular this line:
No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider
Section 230 treats “platforms” as innocent bystanders in the actions and words of its users. As if Facebook’s money-making machine, and the design of that machine, have nothing to do with the proliferation of fake news. Or as if Google does not benefit directly from the false and misleading information of advertisers on its site, which Section 230 immunizes it from.
The thing is, in this world of fake news, online abuse, and propaganda, I think we need to hold these platforms at least partly responsible. To ignore their contributions would be foolish from the perspective of the public.
I’m not saying I have a magic legal tool to do this, because I don’t, and I’m no legal scholar. It’s also difficult to precisely quantify the externalities of the kinds of problems stemming from a complete indifference and immunization from consequences that the platforms currently enjoy. But I think we need to do something, and I think Section 230 isn’t that thing.