PUBLISHER'S NOTE: Technology series: This Blog has been increasingly drawn into the world of technology in terms of its ability to cause wrongful prosecutions, to provide the police with excessive powers, to make decisions in courtrooms about matters such as bail and sentencing, and to impact on individual privacy and dignity. The series will also make clear that one should not evaluate technology such as Artificial intelligence - and the logarithms it is based on - solely within the confines of the criminal justice system. Artificial intelligence is quietly and quickly spreading into many aspects of our lives. We must be aware of the of the total impact on us as individuals and on our society as well.
Harold Levy: Publisher; The Charles Smith Blog.
-----------------------------------------------------------
STORY: "AI Isn’t a Crystal Ball, But It Might Be a Mirror," published by Joe Ito, published by Wired on May 5, 2018: ("Joi Ito is an Ideas contributor for WIRED, and his association with the magazine goes back to its inception. Ito has been recognized for his work as an activist, entrepreneur, venture capitalist and advocate of emergent democracy, privacy and internet freedom. He is coauthor with Jeff Howe of Whiplash: How to Survive Our Faster Future. As director of the MIT Media Lab and a professor of the practice of media arts and sciences, he is currently exploring how radical new approaches to science and technology can transform society in substantial and positive ways.'
GIST: "Everyone from the ACLU to the Koch brothers wants to reduce the number of people in prison and in jail. Liberals view mass incarceration as an unjust result of a racist system. Conservatives view the criminal justice system as an inefficient system in dire need of reform. But both sides agree: Reducing the number of people behind bars is an all-around good idea. To that end, AI—in particular, so-called predictive technologies—has been deployed to support various parts of our criminal justice system. For instance, predictive policing uses data about previous arrests and neighborhoods to direct police to where they might find more crime, and similar systems are used to assess the risk of recidivism for bail, parole, and even sentencing decisions. Reformers across the political spectrum have touted risk assessment by algorithm as more objective than decision-making by an individual. Take the decision of whether to release someone from jail before their trial. Proponents of risk assessment argue that many more individuals could be released if only judges had access to more reliable and efficient tools to evaluate their risk. Yet a 2016 ProPublica investigation revealed that not only were these assessments often inaccurate, the cost of that inaccuracy was borne disproportionately by African American defendants, whom the algorithms were almost twice as likely to label as a high risk for committing subsequent crimes or violating the terms of their parole.
We're using algorithms as crystal balls to make predictions on behalf of society, when we should be using them as a mirror to examine ourselves and our social systems more critically. Machine learning and data science can help us better understand and address the underlying causes of poverty and crime, as long as we stop using these tools to automate decision-making and reinscribe historical injustice. ........When systems are trained to help doctors spot, say, skin cancer, the
benefits are clear. But, in a creepy illustration of the importance of
the data used to train algorithms, a team at the Media Lab created what
is probably the world's first artificial intelligence psychopath
and trained it with a notorious subreddit that documents disturbing,
violent death. They named the algorithm Norman and began showing it
Rorschach inkblots. They also trained an algorithm with more benign
inputs. The standard algorithm saw birds perched on a tree branch,
Norman saw a man electrocuted to death. So when machine-based prediction
is used to make decisions affecting the lives of vulnerable people, we
run the risk of hurting people who are already disadvantaged—moving more
power from the governed to the governing. This is at odds with the
fundamental premise of democracy. States like New Jersey have adopted
pretrial risk assessment in an effort to minimize or eliminate the use of cash-based bail,
which multiple studies have shown is not only ineffective but also
often deeply punitive for those who cannot pay. In many cases, the cash
bail requirement is effectively a means of detaining defendants and
denying them one of their most basic rights: the right to liberty under
the presumption of innocence. While cash bail reform is an admirable
goal, critics of risk assessment are concerned that such efforts might
lead to an expansion of punitive nonmonetary conditions, such as
electronic monitoring and mandatory drug testing. Right now, assessments
provide little to no insight about how a defendant's risk is connected
to the various conditions a judge might set for release."
The entire article can be read at:
PUBLISHER'S NOTE: I am monitoring this case/issue. Keep your eye on the Charles Smith Blog for reports on developments. The Toronto Star, my previous employer for more than twenty incredible years, has put considerable effort into exposing the harm caused by Dr. Charles Smith and his protectors - and into pushing for reform of Ontario's forensic pediatric pathology system. The Star has a "topic" section which focuses on recent stories related to Dr. Charles Smith. It can be found at: http://www.thestar.com/topic/c
