- cross-posted to:
- [email protected]
- cross-posted to:
- [email protected]
You must log in or register to comment.
I really have a hard time deciding if that is the scandal the article makes it out to be (although there is some backpedaling going on). The crucial point is: 8% of the decisions turn out to be wrong or misjudged. The article seems to want us to think that the use of the algorithm is to blame. Yet, is it? Is there evidence that a human would have judged those cases differently? Is there evidence that the algorithm does a worse job than humans? If not, then the article devolves onto blatant fear mongering and the message turns from “algorithm is to blame for deaths” into “algorithm unable to predict the future in 100% of cases”, which of course it can’t…
deleted by creator
The article mentions that one woman (Stefany González Escarraman) went for a restraining order the day after the system deemed her at “low risk” and the judge denied it referring to the VioGen score.
One was Stefany González Escarraman, a 26-year-old living near Seville. In 2016, she went to the police after her husband punched her in the face and choked her. He threw objects at her, including a kitchen ladle that hit their 3-year-old child. After police interviewed Ms. Escarraman for about five hours, VioGén determined she had a negligible risk of being abused again.
The next day, Ms. Escarraman, who had a swollen black eye, went to court for a restraining order against her husband. Judges can serve as a check on the VioGén system, with the ability to intervene in cases and provide protective measures. In Ms. Escarraman’s case, the judge denied a restraining order, citing VioGén’s risk score and her husband’s lack of criminal history.
About a month later, Ms. Escarraman was stabbed by her husband multiple times in the heart in front of their children.
It also says:
Spanish police are trained to overrule VioGén’s recommendations depending on the evidence, but accept the risk scores about 95 percent of the time, officials said. Judges can also use the results when considering requests for restraining orders and other protective measures.
You could argue that the problem isn’t so much the algorithm itself as it is the level of reliance upon it. The algorithm isn’t unproblematic though. The fact that it just spits out a simple score: “negligible”, “low”, “medium”, “high”, “extreme” is, IMO, an indicator that someone’s trying to conflate far too many factors into a single dimension. I have a really hard time believing that anyone knowledgeable in criminal psychology and/or domestic abuse would agree that 35 yes or no questions would be anywhere near sufficient to evaluate the risk of repeated abuse. (I know nothing about domestic abuse or criminal psychology, so I could be completely wrong.)
Apart from that, I also find this highly problematic:
[The] victims interviewed by The Times rarely knew about the role the algorithm played in their cases. The government also has not released comprehensive data about the system’s effectiveness and has refused to make the algorithm available for outside audit.
From those quotes looks like Idiocracy.
i could say a lot in response to your comment about the benefits and shortcomings of algorithms (or put another way, screening tools or assessments), but i’m tired.
i will just point out this, for anyone reading.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2573025/
i am exceedingly troubled that something which is commonly regarded as indicating very high risk when working with victims of domestic violence was ignored in the cited case (disclaimer - i haven’t read the article). if the algorithm fails to consider history of strangulation, it’s garbage. if the user of the algorithm did not include that information (and it was disclosed to them), or keyed it incorrectly, they made an egregious error or omission.
i suppose, without getting into it, i would add - 35 questions (ie established statistical risk factors) is a good amount. large categories are fine. no screening tool is totally accurate, because we can’t predict the future or have total and complete understanding of complex situations. tools are only useful to people trained to use them and with accurate data and inputs. screening tools and algorithms must find a balance between accurate capture and avoiding false positives.
The article mentions that one woman (Stefany González Escarraman) went for a restraining order the day after the system deemed her at “low risk” and the judge denied it referring to the VioGen score.
The judge should be in jail for that and If the judge thinks the “system” can do his job then he should quit as he is clearly useless.
Could a human have judged it better? Maybe not. I think a better question to ask is, “Should anyone be sent back into a violent domestic situation with no additional protection, no matter the calculated risk?” And as someone who has been on the receiving end of that conversation and later narrowly escaped a total-family-annihilation situation, I would say no…no one should be told that, even though they were in a terrifying, life-threatening situation, they will not be provided protection, and no further steps will be taken to keep them from being injured again, or from being killed next time. But even without algorithms, that happens constantly…the only thing the algorithm accomplishes is that the investigator / social worker / etc doesn’t have to have any kind of personal connection with the victim, so they don’t have to feel some kind of way for giving an innocent person a death sentence because they were just doing what the computer told them to.
Final thought: When you pair this practice with the ongoing conversation around the legality of women seeking divorce without their husband’s consent, you have a terrifying and consistently deadly situation.
deleted by creator
Yep. The ones who manage to slip notes to their veterinarian to help them get away are the exception.
Reading stuff like this makes me sick. All is not well with the world.
the only thing the algorithm accomplishes is that the investigator / social worker / etc doesn’t have to have any kind of personal connection with the victim
This even works for people pulling the trigger. Following orders, sed lex dura lex, et cetera ad infinitum.
Yep! For all the psych nerds, it’s pretty much a direct lift of the Milgram Shock Experiment
Critical thinking spotted, proper authorities have been notified.
We will fix you!
Thank you, this is why I came to the Fediverse from Reddit.
IMO this place is far more an echo chamber than Reddit. Both places have their share of team based opinions but reddits diversity IMO is better at surfacing it.
An algorithm is never to blame, some pencil necked desk jockey decided the criteria to get help that was used to create the algorithm, the blame is entirely on them.
That said, I doubt it would make any difference if a human was in the loop. An algorithm is still al algorithm, even if it’s applied by a human. We usually just call that a “policy” though. People have been murdered by the paper sea for decades before we started calling it “algorithms”.
It reminds me of the debate around self driving cars. Tesla has a flawed implementation of self driving tech, that’s trying to gather all the information it needs through camera inputs vs using multiple sensor types. This doesn’t always work, and has led to some questionable crashes where it definitely looks like a human driver could have avoided the crash.
However, even with Tesla’s flawed self driving, They’re supposed to have far fewer wrecks than humans driving. According to Tesla’s safety report, Tesla’s in self driving mode average 5-6 million miles per accident vs 1-1.5 million miles for Tesla drivers not using self driving (US average is 500-750k miles per accident).
So a system like this doesn’t have to be perfect to do a far better job than people can, but that doesn’t mean it won’t feel terrible for the unlucky people who things go poorly for.
Wow Tesla said that Tesla was safe!?!? This changes everything.
That report fails to take into account that the Cybertruck is already a wreck when it rolls off the assembly line.
Unfortunately, this is bad statistics.
The Teslas in self driving mode tend to be used on main roads, and most accidents per mile happen on the small side streets. People are also much safer where Teslas are driven than the these statistics suggest.
There’s not much concrete data I can find on accident rates on highways vs non-highways. You would expect small side streets accidents to have lower fatality rates though, with wrecks at highway speeds to have much higher fatality rates. From what I see, a government investigation into how safe autopilot is determined there were 13 deaths, which is very low number given the billions of miles driven with autopilot on (3 billion+ in 2020, probably 5-10billion now? Just guessing here since I can’t find a newer number).
But yeah, there are so many factors with driving that it’s hard get an exact idea. Rural roads have the highest fatality rates (making up to 90% of accident fatalities in some states), and it’s not hard to image that Tesla’s are less popular in rural communities (although they seem to be pretty popular where I live).
But also rural roads are a perfect use case for autopilot, generally easy driving conditions where most deaths happen due to speeding and the driver not paying attention. Increased adoption of self driving cars in rural communities would probably save a lot of lives.
Here’s another quote further down:
Since 2007, about 0.03 percent of Spain’s 814,000 reported victims of gender violence have been killed after being assessed by VioGén, the ministry said. During that time, repeat attacks have fallen to roughly 15 percent of all gender violence cases from 40 percent, according to government figures.
“If it weren’t for this, we would have more homicides and gender-based violence,” said Juan José López Ossorio, a psychologist who helped create VioGén and works for the Interior Ministry.
So no, not a scandal, it seems it is helping, but perhaps could be better. At least that’s my read.
Is there evidence that a human would have judged those cases differently?
It implies that a human would have been worse. Or at least that an average human would be worse, the ones making the decision.
The article is not about how the AI is responsible for the death. It’s likely that the woman would have died in the counterfactual.
The question is not “how effective is AI”? The question is should life or death decisions be made by an electrified Oracle at Delphi. You must answer this question before “is AI effective” becomes relevant.
If somebody was adjudicating traffic court with Tarot cards, would you ask: well how accurate are the cards compared to a judge?
Decisions should be made by whomever or whatever is most effective. That’s not even a debate. If the tarot cards were right more often than the judge, fire the judge and get me a deck. Because the judge is clearly ineffective.
You can’t privilege an approach just because it sounds more reasonable. It also has to BE more reasonable. It’s crazy to say “I’m happy being wrong because I’m more comfortable with the process”
The trick of course is to find fair ways to measure effectiveness accurately and make sure it’s repeatable. That’s a rabbit hole of challenges.
The judge can bear legal responsibility. It’s a feedback loop - somebody should be responsible for failures. We live in a society. If that somebody is not the side causing failures, things will get bad.
With a deck of cards it should be decided, how the responsibility is distributed between the party replacing humans with it, company producing cards, those interpreting the results.
Your point is valid regardless but the article mentions nothing about AI. (“Algorithm” doesn’t mean “AI”.)
My impression from the article is more that they’re not doing any kind of garbage-in assessment: nobody is making sure they’re getting answers about the right person (eg: some women date more than one guy) and some women don’t feel safe giving accurate answers to the police, and there aren’t good failsafes available for when it’s wrong; you’re forced to hire legal counsel and pursue a change via the courts.
That and, their action for low-risk is all wrong. The stakes are too high to not give someone help, regardless of the risk level.
The crucial point is: 8% of the decisions turn out to be wrong or misjudged.
The article says:
Yet roughly 8 percent of women who the algorithm found to be at negligible risk and 14 percent at low risk have reported being harmed again, according to Spain’s Interior Ministry, which oversees the system.
Granted, neither “negligible” or “low risk” means “no risk”, but I think 8% and 14% are far too high numbers for those categories.
Furthermore, there’s this crucial bit:
At least 247 women have also been killed by their current or former partner since 2007 after being assessed by VioGén, according to government figures. While that is a tiny fraction of gender violence cases, it points to the algorithm’s flaws. The New York Times found that in a judicial review of 98 of those homicides, 55 of the slain women were scored by VioGén as negligible or low risk for repeat abuse.
So in the 98 murders they reviewed, the algorithm put more than 50% of them at negligible or low risk for repeat abuse. That’s a fucking coin flip!
deleted by creator
You’ll get that result without an algorithm as well unfortunately. A domestic violence interview often doesn’t result in you getting the truth of what happens because the victim is often economically and emotionally dependent on their partner. It’s helpful to have an algorithm that makes you ask the right questions but there’s still no way I know of to get the right answers of those questions from a victim 100 percent of the time.
Odd. I replied to this comment, but now my reply is gone. Gonna try again and type up as much as I can remember.
Regardless, an algorithm expecting binary answers will obviously not take para- and extralinguistic cues into account. That extra 50 ms hesitation, the downwards glance and the voice cracking when answering “no” to “has he ever tried to strangle you before?” has a reasonable chance to get picked up by a human, but when reducing it to something that the algorithm can handle, it’s just a simple “no”. Humans are really good at picking up on such cues, even if they aren’t consciously aware that they’re doing it, but if said humans are preoccupied with staring into a computer screen in order to input the answers to the questionnaire, then there’s a much higher chance that they’ll miss them too. I honestly only see negatives here.
It’s helpful to have an algorithm that makes you ask the right questions […]
Arguably a piece of paper could solve that problem.
Seriously. 55 victims out of the 98 homicide cases sampled were deemed at negligible or low risk. If a non-algorithm-assisted department presented those numbered I’d expect them to be looking for new jobs real fast.
I think beyond that it’s purely the failure of the interviewer and not the tool. I think getting rid of the tool will just leave you with shitty interviewers and back to the same situation as you had before.
I’ve given plenty of algorithmic driven assessments myself, though mine are generally much shorter and the weights on the questions much simpler (plus I know the actual reasons behind the weight of my questions and why I’m asking them). You can always intervene when someone’s lying and redirect them and can override the algorithm just like this Spanish policy. Lazy judges and police will exist without the tool.
It might be helpful for the tool to include a label that the interviewer thinks the result is unreliable due to the evasiveness of the interviewee, if only to show where the problems are coming from.
The algorithm itself is just a big “whatever”. The key issue here is that some assumptive piece of shit decided to conclude, based on partial information, that those women would be safe in the future.
The police accepted the software’s judgment and Ms. Hemid went home with no further protection.
This is what happens when you rely on your Nintendos, instead of using your damn brains.
And that’s why I’m against ALL such things.
Not because they can’t be done right and you can’t teach people to use them.
But because there’s a slippery slope of human nature where people want to offload the burden of decision to a machine, an oracle, a die, a set of bird intestines. The genie is out and they will do that again and again, but in a professional organization, like police, one can make a decision of creating fewer opportunities for such catastrophes.
The rule is that people shouldn’t use machines above their brains, as one other commenter says, and they should only use this in a logical OR with their own judgment made earlier, as another commenter says, but the problem is in human nature and I’d rather not introduce this particular point of failure to police, politics, anything juridical and military.
What is that?
It’s from movie Idiocracy from hospital scene. Initial diagnosis.
Here’s this part of the scene: https://youtu.be/LXzJR7K0wK0
It’s 2505 and the average man from 2005 is now by far the smartest man in the world.
It’s a Doctor’s diagnostic desk from the film, “Idiocracy”
And that’s why I’m against ALL such things.
Absolutely, ACAB
Cops are still necessary. It’s giving humans a machine to blame any failure upon is a very bad thing.
I personally think these "AI"s are supported by governments. There’s been a lot of talk 10-15 years ago how many government official’s functions can be replaced by AI (without quotes), since these functions do not require agenda and are not even too fuzzy, but require semantic understanding. So "AI"s (with quotes) are being used like a vaccine, so that the wide mass of humans would hate the guts of the very idea, having experienced them (EDIT: and wouldn’t want actual semantic reasoning systems). Why - because people working in governments love power and hate transparency, they also hate the idea of being replaced with machines.
Or maybe it’s a conspiracy theory and they all really believe in accelerationism.
some political groups engage in mismanagement on purpose to make people dislike the government, that’s hardly a conspiracy, but it’s a little weird to think they’re propping up the misuse of LLMs rather than that being a natural consequence of stupid capitalism
No, I meant governments doing certain things on purpose to discourage people from trusting that whole direction.
Even when given the best and most sophisticated tools and equipment available, police will manage to fuck things up at every opportunity because they’re utterly incompetent.
But the system seems to be better than police officers. Which is entirely believable. Humans have all kinds of biases that make the decisions we make far less than desirable.
Per the article, it has decreased the risk of repeated violence and, according to an expert, its the best systen we have. Why would you want to go back to a worse system? This is using our brains in an attempt to overcoming our biases.
The way to use these kinds of systems is to have the judge came to an independent decision, then, after that’s keyed in, the AI spits out theirs and whichever predicts more danger is then acted on.
Relatedly, the way you have an AI select people and companies to get spot-checked by tax investigators is not to show investigators the AI scores, but mix in AI suspicions among a stream of randomly selected people.
Relatedly, the way you have AI involved in medical diagnoses is not to tell the human doctor results, but suggest additional tests to be made. The “have you ruled out lupus” approach.
And from what I’ve heard the medical profession actually got that right from the very beginning. They know what priming and bias is. Law enforcement? I fear we’ll have to ELI5 them the basics for the next five hundred years.
I don’t think there’s any AI involved. The article mentions nothing of the sort, it’s at least
817 years old (according to the article) and the input is 35 yes/no questions, so it’s probably just some points assigned for the answers and maybe some simple arithmetic.Edit: Upon a closer read I discovered the algorithm was much older than I first thought.
Sounds like an expert system then (just judging by the age) which was AI before the whole machine learning craze, in any case you need to take the same kind of care when integrating them into whatever real-world structures there are.
Medicine used them with quite some success problem being they take a long time to develop because humans need to input expert knowledge, and then they get outdated quite quickly.
Back to the system though: 35 questions is not enough for these kinds of questions. And that’s not an issue of number of questions, but things like body language and tone of voice not being included.
so it’s probably just some points assigned for the answers and maybe some simple arithmetic.
Why yes, that’s all that machine learning is, a bunch of statistics :)
so it’s probably just some points assigned for the answers and maybe some simple arithmetic.Why yes, that’s all that machine learning is, a bunch of statistics :)
I know, but that’s not what I meant. I mean literally something as simple and mundane as assigning points per answer and evaluating the final score:
// Pseudo code risk = 0 if (Q1 == true) { risk += 20 } if (Q2 == true) { risk += 10 } // etc... // Maybe throw in a bit of if (Q28 == true) { if (Q22 == true and Q23 == true) { risk *= 1.5 } else { risk += 10 } } // And finally, evaluate the risk: if (risk < 10) { return "negligible" } else if (risk >= 10 and risk < 40) { return "low risk" } // etc... You get the picture.And yes, I know I can just write
if (Q1) {, but I wanted to make it a bit more accessible for non-programmers.The article gives absolutely no reason for us to assume it’s anything more than that, and I apparently missed the part of the article that mentioned that the system had been in use since 2007. I know we had machine learning too back then, but looking at the project description here: https://eucpn.org/sites/default/files/document/files/Buena practica VIOGEN_0.pdf it looks more like they looked at a bunch of cases (2159) and came up with the 35 questions and a scoring system not unlike what I just described above.
Edit: I managed to find this, which has apparently been taken down since (but thanks to archive.org it’s still available): https://web.archive.org/web/20240227072357/https://eticasfoundation.org/gender/the-external-audit-of-the-viogen-system/
VioGén’s algorithm uses classical statistical models to perform a risk evaluation based on the weighted sum of all the responses according to pre-set weights for each variable. It is designed as a recommendation system but, even though the police officers are able to increase the automatically assigned risk score, they maintain it in 95% of the cases.
… which incidentally matches what the article says (that police maintain the VioGen risk score in 95% of the cases).
But that doesn’t save money and the only reason the capitalists want AI is saving money
I remember years ago when they said the value of our lives would be determined by a panel of people.
Now its by a machine.
Oh, it’s far worse than that… the value of our lives have been determined by the (so-called) “free market” for a very long time now.
The machine is simply going to streamline the process.
This comment is half a century late.
NASDAQ opened in 1971.
The algorithm:
isSafe = random();
if isSafe >.5 println (“everything is fine\n”);
per the article, it’s rather better than that.
I admit to having grossly oversimplified things. Sorry.
I thought that would have been obvious to everyone already.
Having worked in making software for almost 3 decades, including in Finance both before and after the 2008 Crash, this blind reliance on algorithms for law enforcement and victim protection scares the hell out of me.
An algorithm is just an encoding of whatever the people who made it think will happen: it’s like using those actual people directly, only worse because by need an algorithm has a fixed set of input parameters and can’t just ask more questions when something “smells fishy” as a person would.
Also making judgements by “entering something in a form” has a tendency to close people’s thinking - instead of pondering on it and using their intuition to, for example, notice from the way people are talking that they’re understating the gravity of the situation, people filling form tend to mindlessly do it like a box-ticking exercise - and that’s not even going into the whole “As long as I just fill the form my ass is covered” effect when the responsability is delegated to the algorithm that leads people to play it safe and not dispute the results even when their instincts say otherwise.
For anybody who has experience with modelling, using computer algorithms within human processes and with how users actually treat such things (the “computer says” effect) this shit really is scary at many levels.
Computers are only at fault when its convenient to blame them.
Advocates: take survivors of abuse seriously.
Society: Let’s have computers tell us what to do!I mean I guess the risk of repeated murder-suicide is pretty low…
Why do we live in a dystopian hellscape
Capitalism.
People are complicated creatures that can’t be easily fit into niche categories despite our brains need to do so.
Culture.
In the late 1970s (I was a kid) the computer is always right was a common sarcastic parody of all the people who actually believed it.
We’d discover in the 1980s it was possible to have missing data, insufficient data or erroneous data.
It’s a sentiment at least as old as the first things that we now call computers.
On two occasions I have been asked, “Pray, Mr. Babbage, if you put into the machine wrong figures, will the right answers come out?” … I am not able rightly to apprehend the kind of confusion of ideas that could provoke such a question.
—Charles Babbage
As if humans can magically make correct decisions with incorrect information lmao. So true.
About 20 new cases of gender violence arrive every day, each requiring investigation. Providing police protection for every victim would be impossible given staff sizes and budgets.
I think machine-learning is not the key part, the quote above is. All these 20 people a day come to the police for protection, a very small minority of them might be just paranoid, but I’m sure that most of them had some bad shit done to them by their partner already and (in an ideal world) would all deserve some protection. The algorithm’s “success” in defined in the article as reducing probability of repeat attacks, especially the ones eventually leading to death.
The police are trying to focus on the ones who are deemed to be the most at risk. A well-trained algorithm can help reduce the risk vs the judgement of the possibly overworked or inexperienced human handling the complaint? I’ll take that. But people are going to die anyway. Just, hopefully, a bit less of them and I don’t think it’s fair to say that it’s the machine’s fault when they do.
Sounds like a triage situation. That really sucks for the women affected.
Is it really too much to want enough resources to respond appropriately to all cases?
Minority Report: the beta test
Our pigs don’t look as good as [generic Hollywood actor]
The computer response should be treated as just an indication and in all cases a human needs to decide to override that
Otherwise we’ll all become useless pieces of a simulation
I went to the bank to ask a loan and then it got rejected because the computer said I didn’t met the parameters by just 40 euro. Ah ok, I told the clerk, just lower the amount that I’m asking or spread it over a longer period. No, because after the quote is done and I signed the authorization for the algorithm to perform credit score, it can’t do it again in 3 months. What?? Call a supervisor and let them override it, 40 euro is so minimal that it’s not that big issue. No, impossible. So that means each single employee in the bank is just an interface to the computer and can be fired at will?
Minority Don’t Report
Cracked me up thanks!
