{"title":"Algorithmic Bias and Access to Opportunities","authors":"Lisa Herzog","doi":"10.1093/oxfordhb/9780198857815.013.21","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The chapter discusses the problem of algorithmic bias in decision-making processes that determine access to opportunities, such as recidivism scores, college admission decisions, or loan scores. After describing the technical bases of algorithmic bias, it asks how to evaluate them, drawing on Iris Marion Young’s perspective of structural (in)justice. The focus is in particular on the risk of so-called ‘Matthew effects’, in which privileged individuals gain more advantages, while those who are already disadvantaged suffer further. Some proposed solutions are discussed, with an emphasis on the need to take a broad, interdisciplinary perspective rather than a purely technical perspective. The chapter also replies to the objection that private firms cannot be held responsible for addressing structural injustices and concludes by emphasizing the need for political and social action.","PeriodicalId":262957,"journal":{"name":"The Oxford Handbook of Digital Ethics","volume":"47 8","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2021-11-10","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"The Oxford Handbook of Digital Ethics","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780198857815.013.21","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1
Abstract
The chapter discusses the problem of algorithmic bias in decision-making processes that determine access to opportunities, such as recidivism scores, college admission decisions, or loan scores. After describing the technical bases of algorithmic bias, it asks how to evaluate them, drawing on Iris Marion Young’s perspective of structural (in)justice. The focus is in particular on the risk of so-called ‘Matthew effects’, in which privileged individuals gain more advantages, while those who are already disadvantaged suffer further. Some proposed solutions are discussed, with an emphasis on the need to take a broad, interdisciplinary perspective rather than a purely technical perspective. The chapter also replies to the objection that private firms cannot be held responsible for addressing structural injustices and concludes by emphasizing the need for political and social action.
本章讨论了在决定获得机会的决策过程中的算法偏差问题,例如累犯分数、大学录取决定或贷款分数。在描述了算法偏见的技术基础之后,它询问了如何评估它们,并借鉴了Iris Marion Young的结构正义(in)观点。研究的重点是所谓的“马太效应”的风险,即享有特权的人获得更多的优势,而那些已经处于不利地位的人则遭受更大的损失。讨论了一些建议的解决办法,重点是需要采取广泛的跨学科观点,而不是纯粹的技术观点。本章还答复了反对意见,即私营公司不能对解决结构性不公正负责,并在结束时强调需要采取政治和社会行动。