Comment by londons

drdaeman 4 days ago

I think you took too much of a jump, considering all properties the same, as if the only way to make the system fair is to make it entirely blind to the applicant.

We tend to distinguish between ascribed and achieved characteristics. It is considered to be unethical to discriminate upon things a person has no control over, such as their nationality, gender, age or natural hair color.

However, things like a car brand are entirely dependent on one's own actions, and if there's a meaningful statistically significant correlation owning a Maserati and fraudulently applying for welfare, I'm not entirely sure it would be unethical to consider such factor.

And it also depends on what a false positive means for a person in question. Fairness (like most things social) is not binary, and while outright rejections can be very unfair, additional scrutiny can be less so, even though still not fair (causing prolonged times and extra stress). If things are working normally, I believe there's a sort of (ever-changing, of course, as times and circumstances evolve) an unspoken social agreement on what's the balance between fairness and abuse that can be afforded.

Reply View 4 replies

luckylion 4 days ago

> It is considered to be unethical to discriminate upon things a person has no control over, such as their nationality, gender, age or natural hair color.
Nationality and natural hair color I understand, but age and gender? A lot of behaviors are not evenly distributed. Riots after a football match? You're unlikely to find a lot of elderly women (and men, but especially women) involved. Someone is fattening a child? That elderly women you've excluded for riots suddenly becomes a prime suspect.
> things like a car brand are entirely dependent on one's own actions
If you assume perfect free will, sure. But do you?

Reply View | 2 replies
- drdaeman 4 days ago
  
  > A lot of behaviors are not evenly distributed.
  That’s true. But the idea is that feeding it to a system as an input could be considered unethical, as one cannot control their age. Even though there’s a valid correlation.
  > If you assume perfect free will, sure. But do you?
  I’m not. If this matters, I’m actually currently persuaded that free will doesn’t exist. Which doesn’t change that if one buys a car, its make is typically all their decision. Whenever such decision is coming from them having a free will or entirely determined by antecedent causes doesn’t really matter for purposes of fraud detection (or maybe I fail to see how it does).
  I mean, we don’t need to care why people do things (at all, in general) - it matters for how we should act upon detection, but not for detecting itself. And, as I understand it, we know we don’t want to cause unfair pressure on groups defined by factors they cannot change. Because when we did that it consistently contributed to various undesirable consequences. E.g. discrimination and stereotypes against women or men, or prejudice against younger or elder people didn’t do us any well.
  
  Reply View | 1 reply
  
  luckylion 4 days ago
  
  I get where you're coming from, but I very much doubt it's true RE car makes (and many similar things). There's a reason men and women have very distinct buying habits. E.g. men are ~4x more likely to buy a motorcycle. Individual decisions with that large a discrepancy between groups aren't individual decisions.
  Can a young male really change their risk-tolerance or their innate drive to secure their place in the world (which will probably affect both their likelihood to buy sports cars and commit certain crimes)? I don't think we can pretend that everyone from toddler to granny is the same _and_ use any data to solve crimes / detect fraud.
  In the end it comes down to where we draw the line between "person can't change this, so it's invalid to consider", "we don't believe it's linked, so it's invalid to consider" and "this is free will, so it's a valid signal", and I haven't seen a line that doesn't feel arbitrary ("I don't like that group, so their thing is free will, but I like this group, so their thing isn't") and is useful.
  
  Reply View | 0 replies
belorn 4 days ago

Could we look at what kind of achieved characteristics exists that do not act as a proxy for an ascribed characteristics, because I have a really hard time to find those. Culture and values are highly intertwined with behavior, and the bigger the impact the behavior has on a person life, it seems that the stronger the proxy behavior is going to be.
To take a few examples, looking at employment characteristics will have a strong relationship with gender, generally creating greater false positives for women. Similarly, academic success will have greater false positives for men. Where a person choose to live will proxy heavily towards social economic factors, which in turn has gender as a major factor.
Welfare fraud in itself also has differences between men and women. The sums tend to be higher for men. Women in turn dominate the users of the welfare system. Women and men also tend to receive welfare at different time in their life. It possible even that car brand has a correlation with gender which then would act as a proxy.
In terms of defining fairness, I do find it interesting that the Analogue Process gave men a beneficial advantage, while both the initial and the reweighed model are the opposite and give women an even bigger beneficial advantage. The change in bias against men created by using the detection algorithms is actually about the same size as the change in bias against non-dutch nationality between initial model and the reweighed one.

Reply View | 0 replies

Borealid 4 days ago

I think the ethical desire is not to remove bias across all properties. Properties that result from an individual's conscious choices are allowed to be used as factors.

One can't change one's race, but changing marital status is possible.

Where it gets tricky is things like physical fitness or social groups...

Reply View 0 replies

Comment by londons_explore