Are We Really Better Than Algorithms?

It's interesting looking at (two in particular) this week's scholarship on algorithms, situating them in the contexts of everyday life and us as human beings, respectively.

Algorithms are defined and re-defined in many ways in both texts, but the most explicit case was: "incredibly relational- it is the relation that defines, describes and shapes how that data are then (re)presented. These relations are defined and designed by the architects of the algorithm according to a design brief, a particular desire or identified output, and shaped by technical specificity, commercial incentive and social predispositions, bias and cultural understandings." (Willson, p.148)

A recurring idea is that algorithms are these models built on collected data and used to manipulate and achieve various goals. There is a tone of warning across the two texts, which is situated in a general global attitude that an algorithm-heavy world removes humanity and autonomy from existence.

At risk of sounding super cynical, which is almost a cliche in the Arts faculty, I feel as if algorithms just reflect human nature. The argument that what separates algorithms from people is the ability for us to register and appreciate "concepts", "context" and "judgement" so that the right result, as opposed to the correct result, in a given situation is reached feels off.

Algorithmic bias doesn't seem to be the result of an algorithm's lack of contextual appreciation, but more as a result of the design of the algorithm and- as it stands- people design said algorithms. Hence, the bias comes from the people not the algorithm. In addition to that, people are biased as all hell. People often use notions like fairness and objectivity regarding things like statistics when making a case for the rationality of their decisions, usually to debate accusations of bias. But this process usually involves a selective use of data. Algorithms, although unable to consider compassion in a case-by-case basis like we would ideally believe that humans can and would do, consider all this data that we have access to- much faster- and formulate "opinions" with consideration to all aspects of a scenario.

In essence, numbers don't pigeon-hole people; people pigeon-hole people, and use numbers to make it look like they don't.