Emerging trends: I did it, I did it, I did it, but. . . (7th March 2017)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: CHURCH, KENNETH WARD
• Is Part Of: Natural language engineering. Volume 23:Part 3(2017)
• Page Start: 473
• Page End: 480
• Publication Date: 2017-03-07
• Subjects: Natural language processing (Computer science) -- Periodicals; Software engineering -- Periodicals; 006.35
• DOI: 10.1017/S1351324917000067
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 1351-3249

Abstract

Abstract: There has been a trend for publications to report better and better numbers, but less and less insight. The literature is turning into a giant leaderboard, where publication depends on numbers and little else (such as insight and explanation). It is considered a feature that machine learning has become so powerful (and so opaque) that it is no longer necessary (or even relevant) to talk about how it works. Insight is not only not required any more, but perhaps, insight is no longer even considered desirable. Transparency is good and opacity is bad. A recent best seller, Weapons of Math Destruction, is concerned that big data (and WMDs) increase inequality and threaten democracy largely because of opacity. Algorithms are being used to make lots of important decisions like who gets a loan and who goes to jail. If we tell the machine to maximize an objective function like making money, it will do exactly that, for better and for worse. Who is responsible for the consequences? Does it make it ok for machines to do bad things if no one knows what's happening and why, including those of us who created the machines?