To say that a credit system that takes income and payment history into account is discriminatory is disingenuous since that was it’s purpose. Any predictive system discriminates the instant that variables are determined. Predictive policing is another example of the author restating the obvious as a conspiracy while all it does is put assets where crime has occurred in the past.
I don’t know what you could do regarding credit since the willingness to lend is a function of the expected recovery rate. As to policing the problem is not the distribution of those assets but their training. The “poor” are those most negatively effected by crime. They welcome protection. It’s the harassment that results from poor personnel selection and training of police that they object to.
If you object to the use of predictive algorithms your foolish. Don’t you ever watch the weather report. I can sum up why this article is stupid with the example of home ownership. Those owning in the most dangerous (to value) locations are bimodal. The rich build on the seashore, sloping ground and other dangerous locations. Those choices are subsidized by the government through flood insurance and disaster relief. The poor live in dangerous locations as well. The primary danger to the poor are environmental costs. These could be mitigated but society is in the process of ending environmental regulation since it reduces ROI by an estimated .005. It’s not the math that discriminates it’s people.
Comments are closed.