IBM and Algorithmic Bias
January 25, 2018
I read “Unexplainable Algos? Get Off the Market, Says IBM Chief Ginni Rometty.” The idea is in line with Weapons of Math Destruction and the apparent interest in “black box” solutions. If you are old enough, you will remember the Autonomy IDOL system. It featured a “black box” which licensees used without the ability to alter how the system operated. You may also recall that the first Google Search Appliances locked users out as well. One installed the GSA and it just worked—at least, in theory.
This article includes information derived from the IBM content output for the World Economic Forum where it helps to have one’s own helicopter for transportation.
I noted this statement:
“When it comes to the new capabilities of artificial intelligence, we must be transparent about when and how it is being applied and about who trained it, with what data, and how,” the IBM chairman, president and CEO wrote.
I don’t want to be too picky but IBM owns the i2 Analyst Notebook system. If you are not familiar with this platform, it provides law enforcement and intelligence professionals with tools to organize, analyze, and marshal information for an investigation. As a former consultant to i2, I am not sure if the plumbing developed by i2 is public. In fact, IBM and Palantir jousted in court when IBM sued Palantir for improper use of its intellectual property; that is a fancy way of saying, “Palantir engineers tried to figure out how i2 worked.” The case settled out of court and many of the documents are sealed because no one party to the case wanted certain information exposed to bright sunlight.
IBM operates a number of cybersecurity services. One of these has the ability to intercept a voice call and map that call to email and other types of communications. The last time I received some information about this service I had to sign a bundle of documents. The idea, of course, is that much of the technology was, from my point of view, a “black box.”
So what?
The statement by IBM’s CEO is important because it is, in my opi9nion, hand waving. IBM deals in systems which are neither fully understood by some of the IBM experts selling these solutions, and some of the engineers who may know more about the inner working of secret or confidential systems and methods are not talking. An expert knows stuff others do not; therefore, why talk and devalue one’s expertise.
To sum up, talk about making math centric systems and procedures transparent is just noise. The number of people who can explain how systems which emerged from Cambridge University like Autonomy’s Neurolinguistic System or i2’s Analyst Notebook are in short supply.
How can one who does not understand explain how a complex system works. Black boxes exist to keep those which thumbs for fingers from breaking what works.
Talk doesn’t do much to deal with the algorithmic basics:
- Some mathematical procedures in wide use are not easily explained or reverse engineered; hence, the IBM charge that Palantir tried a short cut through the words to the cookie jar
- Most next generation systems are built on a handful of algorithms. I have identified 10 which I explain in my lectures about the flaws embedded in “smart” systems. Each of the most widely used algorithms can be manipulated in a number of ways. Some require humans to fiddle; other fiddle when receiving inputs from other systems.
- Explainable systems are based on rules. By definition, one assumes the rules work as the authors intended. News flash. Rule based systems can behave in unpredictable, often inexplicable ways. A fun example is for you, gentle reader, to try and get the default numbering system in Microsoft Word to perform consistently with regard to left justification of numbered lists.
- Chain a series of algorithms together in a work flow. Add real time data to update thresholds. Watch the outputs. Now explain what happened. Good luck with that.
I love IBM. Always marketing.
Stephen E Arnold, January 25, 2018
Comments
-
- Subscribe to Beyond Search
Feature archive
News archive
-
