This was originally posted as a response to an article on Quillette entitled “The White of the AI”. I will clean it up later, as breakfast is pending. Great essay. Succinct, cogent and a perfect example of clear writing. I think there really are problems associated with AI and race, especially in areas of facial recognition (which is easy to overcome, more data please!) and statistical hegemony. The latter beast is a far more difficult dragon to slay. Actuarial work has long been obsessed with obtaining data which is as accurate as possible for a long while, for the purposes of providing fair estimates of likely risk, so that insurers and banks can provide products which reflect a customers circumstances whilst deriving modest profits- along the proceeds of the far more lucrative float (money made from investments whilst the insurer waits for the risks to accrue and the possibility of a pay out).
As a long time fan of your comments on Quillette, I was delighted to see you started writing regularly on Substack.
My concern with this article though is I am not sure everyone would agree with the way you are defining fairness. The point is that insurance or interest rates should be set blind to race, not blind to hypertension or income. The fact that some racial groups have better and some have worse health or lending records is just a statistical artifact, not an example of some kind of higher level racism. The point of a fair system is to take our thumb off the scale, not to change which side we are pressing on.
From a fairness standpoint, I do not believe we should lower basketball shooting standards to ensure we get a sufficient proportion of Asian females or dwarves on NBA teams. Fairness is using impartial standards applied equally to all, and disparate impact is not proof to the contrary.
From a practical standpoint, I could go into depth on the unintended adverse impacts of forcing statistical equality after the fact on insurance or lending. Perverse results are virtually guaranteed. This will probably be off topic though, so I will refrain doing so.
As a long time fan of your comments on Quillette, I was delighted to see you started writing regularly on Substack.
My concern with this article though is I am not sure everyone would agree with the way you are defining fairness. The point is that insurance or interest rates should be set blind to race, not blind to hypertension or income. The fact that some racial groups have better and some have worse health or lending records is just a statistical artifact, not an example of some kind of higher level racism. The point of a fair system is to take our thumb off the scale, not to change which side we are pressing on.
From a fairness standpoint, I do not believe we should lower basketball shooting standards to ensure we get a sufficient proportion of Asian females or dwarves on NBA teams. Fairness is using impartial standards applied equally to all, and disparate impact is not proof to the contrary.
From a practical standpoint, I could go into depth on the unintended adverse impacts of forcing statistical equality after the fact on insurance or lending. Perverse results are virtually guaranteed. This will probably be off topic though, so I will refrain doing so.
Great article!