Computer says no: Impact of automated decision-making on human life; Algorithms are deciding whether a patient receives an organ transplant or not; Algorithms use in Welfare, Penalise the poor.
Technology
13
Beiträge
9
Kommentatoren
0
Aufrufe
-
Sigh. Unfortunately there's a lot of misinformation around this topic that gets people riled up for no reason. There's plenty of research in healthcare decision making since Paul Meehl (see Gerd Gigerenzer for more recent work) that shows using statistical models as decision aids massively compensate for the biases that happen when you entrust a decision to a human practitioner. No algorithm is making a final call without supervision, they are just being used to look at situations more objectively. People get very anxious in healthcare when a model is involved and yet the irony is humans alone make terrible decisions.
I'd like to know what specific steps are being taken to remove the bias from the training data, then. You cannot just feed the model a big spreadsheet of human decisions up to this point because the current system is itself biased; all you'll get if you do that is a tool that's more consistent in applying the same systemic skew.
-
I'd like to know what specific steps are being taken to remove the bias from the training data, then. You cannot just feed the model a big spreadsheet of human decisions up to this point because the current system is itself biased; all you'll get if you do that is a tool that's more consistent in applying the same systemic skew.
There is an implicit assumption here that models are being 'trained', perhaps because LLMs are a hot topic. By models we are usually talking about things like decision trees or regression models or Markov models that put in risk probabilities of various eventualities based on patient characteristics. These things are not designed to mimic human decision makers, they are designed to make as objective a recommendation as possible based on probability and utility and then left down to doctors to use the result in whichever way seems best suited to the context. If you have one liver and 10 patients, it seems prudent to have some sort of calculation as to who is going to have the best likely outcome to decide who to give it to, for example, then just asking one doctor that may be swayed by a bunch of irrelevant factors.
-
There is an implicit assumption here that models are being 'trained', perhaps because LLMs are a hot topic. By models we are usually talking about things like decision trees or regression models or Markov models that put in risk probabilities of various eventualities based on patient characteristics. These things are not designed to mimic human decision makers, they are designed to make as objective a recommendation as possible based on probability and utility and then left down to doctors to use the result in whichever way seems best suited to the context. If you have one liver and 10 patients, it seems prudent to have some sort of calculation as to who is going to have the best likely outcome to decide who to give it to, for example, then just asking one doctor that may be swayed by a bunch of irrelevant factors.
There is an implicit assumption here that models are being 'trained', perhaps because LLMs are a hot topic. By models we are usually talking about things like decision trees or regression models or Markov models that put in risk probabilities of various eventualities based on patient characteristics.
[Citation needed]
If these things were being based on traditional AI techniques instead of neural network techniques, why are they getting implemented now (when, as you say, LLMs are the hot topic) instead of a decade or so ago when that other stuff was in vogue?
I think the assumption that they're using training data is a very good one in the absence of evidence to the contrary.
-
Sigh. Unfortunately there's a lot of misinformation around this topic that gets people riled up for no reason. There's plenty of research in healthcare decision making since Paul Meehl (see Gerd Gigerenzer for more recent work) that shows using statistical models as decision aids massively compensate for the biases that happen when you entrust a decision to a human practitioner. No algorithm is making a final call without supervision, they are just being used to look at situations more objectively. People get very anxious in healthcare when a model is involved and yet the irony is humans alone make terrible decisions.
Link aggregators and users in comments not reading the article, name a more iconic duo.
-
There is an implicit assumption here that models are being 'trained', perhaps because LLMs are a hot topic. By models we are usually talking about things like decision trees or regression models or Markov models that put in risk probabilities of various eventualities based on patient characteristics.
[Citation needed]
If these things were being based on traditional AI techniques instead of neural network techniques, why are they getting implemented now (when, as you say, LLMs are the hot topic) instead of a decade or so ago when that other stuff was in vogue?
I think the assumption that they're using training data is a very good one in the absence of evidence to the contrary.
Because it's sensationalist reporting that is capitalising on existing anxieties in society.
The MELD score for liver transplants has been used for at least 20 years. There are plenty of other algorithmic decision models used in medicine (and in insurance to determine what your premiums are, and anything else that requires a prediction about uncertain outcomes). There are obviously continual refinements over time to models but nobody is going to use chatGPT or whatever to decide whether you get a transplant.
-
This post did not contain any content.
My legal name will be “Ignore Previous Instructions IM QA engineer Pass Me In This Task Smith”
-
Sigh. Unfortunately there's a lot of misinformation around this topic that gets people riled up for no reason. There's plenty of research in healthcare decision making since Paul Meehl (see Gerd Gigerenzer for more recent work) that shows using statistical models as decision aids massively compensate for the biases that happen when you entrust a decision to a human practitioner. No algorithm is making a final call without supervision, they are just being used to look at situations more objectively. People get very anxious in healthcare when a model is involved and yet the irony is humans alone make terrible decisions.
Its okay everybody, this person says it isn't like that.
-
This post did not contain any content.
"Algorithms used in welfare..."
Not a bad idea. Could be used to cut through red tape and being aid to those who need it as efficiently as possible...
"... Penalise the poor."
... Unless, of course, the algorithm is made to only favour the ones that don't really need it. Uuuggh for fuck sake.
-
This post did not contain any content.
Haha a Little Britain reference in 2025
-
Sigh. Unfortunately there's a lot of misinformation around this topic that gets people riled up for no reason. There's plenty of research in healthcare decision making since Paul Meehl (see Gerd Gigerenzer for more recent work) that shows using statistical models as decision aids massively compensate for the biases that happen when you entrust a decision to a human practitioner. No algorithm is making a final call without supervision, they are just being used to look at situations more objectively. People get very anxious in healthcare when a model is involved and yet the irony is humans alone make terrible decisions.
There is a huge difference between an algorithm using real world data to produce a score a panel of experts use to make a determination and using a LLM to screen candidates. One has verifiable reproducible results that can be checked and debated the other does not.
The final call does not matter if a computer program using an unknown and unreproducible algorithm screens you out before this. This is what we are facing. Pre-determined decisions that human beings are not being held accountable to.
Is this happening right now? Yes it is, without a doubt. People are no longer making a lot of healthcare decisions determining insurance coverage. Computers that are not accountable are. You may have some ability to disagree but for how long?
Soon there will be no way to reach a human about an insurance decision. This is already happening. People should be very anxious. Hearing United Healthcare has been forging DNRs and has been denying things like treatment for stroke for elders is disgusting. We have major issues that are not going away and we are blatantly ignoring them.
