Politics Government by algorithm: Can AI improve human decisionmaking?
Billions in US weaponry seized by Taliban
Billions of dollars of U.S. weapons are now in the hands of the Taliban following the quick collapse of Afghan security forces that were trained to use the military equipment.Among the items seized by the Taliban are Black Hawk helicopters and A-29 Super Tucano attack aircraft.Photos have also circulated of Taliban fighters clutching U.S.-made M4 carbines and M16 rifles instead of their iconic AK-47s. And the militants have been spotted with U.S. Humvees and mine-resistant ambush protected vehicles.
Regulatory bodies around the world increasingly recognize that they need to regulate how governments usealgorithms when making high-stakes decisions. This is a welcome development, but current approaches fall short.
As regulators develop policies, they must consider how human decisionmakers interact with algorithms. If they do not, regulations will provide a false sense of security in governments adopting algorithms.
In recent years, researchers and journalists have exposed how algorithmic systems used by, , , and other government bodies are rife with errors and biases. These reports have spurred increased regulatory attention to evaluating the accuracy and fairness of algorithms used (or proposed for use) by governments.
Indonesian court rules president negligent over pollution
JAKARTA, Indonesia (AP) — An Indonesian court ruled Thursday that President Joko Widodo and six other top officials have neglected to fulfill citizens’ rights to clean air and ordered them to improve the poor air quality in the capital. The Central Jakarta District Court panel voted 3-0 in favor of the group of 32 residents who filed a lawsuit in July 2019 against Widodo and his three Cabinet ministers of home affairs, health and environment, as well as governors of Jakarta, Banten and West Java, in seeking a healthy living environment in the city.
In the United States,passed by Washington State in 2020 and currently being debated in the California Legislature mandate that agencies or vendors must evaluate the accuracy and fairness of algorithms before public agencies can use them. Similarly, the proposed in April by the European Commission requires providers of high-risk AI systems to conduct ex ante assessments evaluating the accuracy of their systems.
Although it is necessary to increase the scrutiny placed on the quality of government algorithms, this approach fails to fully consider how algorithmic predictions affect policy decisions. First, in most high-stakes and controversial settings, algorithms do not operate autonomously. Instead, they are provided as aids to people who make the final decisions. Second, most policy decisions require more than a straightforward prediction. Instead, decisionmakers must balance predictions of future outcomes with other, competing goals.
Advocates fear US weighing climate vs. human rights on China
U.S. envoy John Kerry’s diplomatic quest to stave off the worst scenarios of global warming is meeting resistance from China, the world's biggest climate polluter, which is adamant that the United States ease confrontation over other matters if it wants Beijing to speed up its climate efforts. Rights advocates and Republican lawmakers say they see signs, including softer language and talk of heated internal debate among Biden administration officials, that China’s pressure is leading the United States to back off on criticism of China’s mass detentions, forced sterilization and other abuses of its predominantly Muslim Uyghur minority in the Xinjiang region.
Consider the example of pretrial risk assessments, whichacross the United States have adopted in recent years. These tools predict the likelihood that a pretrial defendant, if released before trial, will fail to appear in court for trial or will be rearrested before trial. To many and , pretrial risk assessments promise to replace flawed human predictions with more accurate and "objective" algorithmic predictions.
Yet even if pretrial risk assessments could make accurate and fair predictions (which many scholars and reform advocates), this alone would not guarantee that these algorithms improve pretrial outcomes. Risk predictions are presented to judges, who must decide how to act on them. Furthermore, although judges must limit the risk of defendants being rearrested or not returning to court for trial, they must balance those goals with other interests, such as .
Analysis: Will the real Notre Dame please stand up? Fighting Irish undefeated, but must improve fast to stay in contention
Notre Dame improved to 3-0 with a defeat of Purdue, but its toughest tests are ahead and questions about where the Irish are hover over South Bend.So for a team rebuilding and still hoping to stay in the chase for the postseason, Notre Dame is not looking like the team that made the playoff two of the last three years.
A central question about the effects of algorithms like pretrial risk assessments is whether providing algorithmic risk predictions improves human decisions.and have raised concerns that the emphasis on risk by pretrial risk assessments will prompt judges to treat defendants more harshly.
In a newly published, my colleague and I used an online experiment to evaluate how algorithms influence human decisionmaking. We found that even when risk assessments improve people's predictions, they do not actually improve people's decisions.
When participants in our experiment were presented with the predictions of risk assessments, they became more attentive to reducing risk at the expense of other values. This systematic change in decisionmaking counteracted the potential benefits of improved predictions. In the context of pretrial decisionmaking, the ultimate effect was to increase racial disparities in pretrial detention.
Our experimental results build on a growing body of evidence demonstrating thatand other use algorithms in unexpected ways in practice. These behaviors mean that government algorithms often fail to generate the expected policy benefits.
Full transcript: Biden addresses 76th UN General Assembly
President Joe Biden encouraged countries to act together to fight COVID-19. The full transcript of Biden's speech is below:
This empirical evidence demonstrates the limit of regulations that focus only on how an algorithm operates when used autonomously. Even if an algorithm makes accurate predictions, it may not improve how government staff make decisions. Instead, tools like pretrial risk assessments can generate unexpected and undemocratic shifts in the normative balancing act that is central to decisionmaking in many areas of public policy.
It is necessary to expand regulations of government algorithms to account for how they influence human decisionmaking. Before an algorithm is deemed appropriate for a government body to use, there must exist empirical evidence suggesting that the algorithm is likely to improve human decisionmaking.
Fortunately, there is a path for developing deeper knowledge about human interactions with algorithms before these tools are implemented in practice: conducting experimental evaluations of human-algorithm collaborations.
Prior to deployment, vendors and agencies should run experiments to test how people interact with a proposed algorithm. If an algorithm is operationalized in practice, its use should be continuously monitored to ensure that it generates the intended outcomes.
A proactive pipeline of evaluations along these lines should become a central component of regulations for how governments use algorithms. Before government agencies implement algorithms, there must be rigorous evidence regarding what impacts these tools are likely to generate and democratic deliberation supporting those impacts.
is a postdoctoral scholar in the Michigan Society of Fellows and an assistant professor in the Gerald R. Ford School of Public Policy. He is the author of "The Smart Enough City: Putting Technology in Its Place to Reclaim Our Urban Future."
Justice Alito Responds to ‘Annoying’ Critics of ‘Shadow Docket,’ Says There Is No ‘Dangerous Cabal’ Deciding Cases ‘in the Dead of Night’ .
In an academically-toned speech at the University of Notre Dame's Kellogg Institute for International Studies, Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito on Thursday hit back at critics of the court's so-called "shadow docket" — a term loosely applied to various high court procedures but mostly to the court's disposition of emergency applications. The post Justice Alito Responds to ‘Annoying’ Critics of ‘Shadow Docket,’ Says There Is No ‘Dangerous Cabal’ Deciding Cases ‘in the Dead of Night’ first appeared on Law & Crime.