Visit our website
New America Cypbersecurity Initiative
New America Cypbersecurity Initiative
MIT Technology Review
MIT Technology Review
io9
io9
Techdirt
Techdirt
Knowledge@Wharton
Knowledge@Wharton
Bioscience Technology
Bioscience Technology
redOrbit
redOrbit
Technology & Marketing Law Blog
Technology & Marketing Law Blog
Popular Science Blog
Popular Science Blog
Pew Research Center
Pew Research Center
Genomics Law Report
Genomics Law Report
Science 2.0
Science 2.0
The Guardian Headquarters
The Guardian Headquarters
Genetic Literacy Project
Genetic Literacy Project
Disclaimer

Statements posted on this blog represent the views of individual authors and do not necessarily represent the views of the Center for Law Science & Innovation (which does not take positions on policy issues) or of the Sandra Day O'Connor College of Law or Arizona State University.

Worldwide Web Watch

WWWearth

August 24, 2016

In an ASU law school class, Law, Science and TechnologyLSI faculty recently highlighted that while judges, expert witnesses and humans in general are subject to biases (unintentional or otherwise), algorithms are so as well.  An algorithm may be viewed as more objective given its (current) lack of human qualities, but as an article in The Conversation points out, bias remains.  However, such bias may be fixed with awareness — by observing how, when and where it occurs (which is easier with digital systems) and tweaking the software as needed.  Interestingly, as the article notes, algorithms and monitoring thereof allow for faster recognition of the existence of bias and, thus, quicker fixes.