Weapons of Math Destruction: invisible, ubiquitous algorithms are ruining millions of lives by Cory Doctorow.
From the post:
I’ve been writing about the work of Cathy “Mathbabe” O’Neil for years: she’s a radical data-scientist with a Harvard PhD in mathematics, who coined the term “Weapons of Math Destruction” to describe the ways that sloppy statistical modeling is punishing millions of people every day, and in more and more cases, destroying lives. Today, O’Neil brings her argument to print, with a fantastic, plainspoken, call to arms called (what else?) Weapons of Math Destruction.
I’ve followed Cathy’s posts long enough to recommend Weapons of Math Destruction sight unseen. (Publication date September 6, 2016.)
Warning: If you read Weapons of Math Destruction, unlike executives who choose models based on their “gut,” or “instinct,” you may be charged with constructive knowledge of how you model discriminates against group X or Y.
If, like a typical Excel user, you can honestly say “I type in the numbers here and the output comes out there,” it’s going to be hard to prove any intent to discriminate.
You are no more responsible for a result than a pump handle is responsible for cholera.
Doctorow’s conclusion:
…
O’Neil’s book is a vital crash-course in the specialized kind of statistical knowledge we all need to interrogate the systems around us and demand better.
depends upon your definition of “better.”
“Better” depends on your goals or those of a client.
Yes?
PS: It is important to understand models/statistics/data so you can shape results to be your definition of “better.” But acknowledging all results are shaped. The critical question is “What shape do you want?”