Hacker News Reader

I go back and forth on the value of a "devil's advocate". I hope someone else will chime in to help me out if I don't explain this eloquently.

This is a case where I believe the topic won't be properly discussed unless someone is willing to take a hard stance on the negative side. Someone has to point out all the potential failings of the system that so many people are pouring their lives into building. Even if that person ends up taking a much harder stance than they actually believe in, and becoming a little too disconnected from reality.

The situations being described in the article are horrifying, and sound an awful lot like what you might expect from software bugs in their early stages. That wouldn't be a problem if there was an appropriate human force behind the systems going online, but we've all seen stakeholders push systems into production before they're ready without adequate support.

You're probably on the right track to call it a "badly designed government process", but I'd wager the human element is what softened the blow from that bureaucracy. It shifts the burden of proof from the case worker to the support seeker. It changes the conversation from "You think you deserve benefits? Let's look over your evidence" to "You've already been rejected, why should we support you?". When you're talking about people surviving, that's a significant difference.

>Even if that person ends up taking a much harder stance than they actually believe in, and becoming a little too disconnected from reality.

Sure, that will get the issues discussed - discussed and then promptly rejected. A bad arguer arguing for the right side can do a lot of damage. For example, imagine how successful climate change skeptics would be if someone got in to the news by saying that New York was a month away from flooding.

Devil's advocate only works if the person is truly informed about the underlying science of both viewpoints.

Most often the people who call themselves that aren't even competent enough to explain their own viewpoint.

In addition, there is nothing in the article to support the point it's trying to make. Not a single number to compare against. It says "new thing X is bad", while it should be saying "New thing X is worse than old thing Y and here is how that was measured". Otherwise how should I know if a similar article could have been written about how "old thing Y is bad". Surely, humans making decisions about welfare is also error prone and much more resource intensive, and the job of a journalist would be to make the comparison.

I'm interested in facts, not opinions completely lacking in (and separated from) facts.

It looks like this article is setting up a week of reporting, and I assume the facts will come in subsequent stories. It's a weird format though; not one I'm accustom to in a world of self-contained news reports.

Sometimes the desired neutrality, put to practice, is so dull that it fails to reach advocates for either position.

In practice, a biased statement can bring better counterarguments: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Cunningham%27s_Law

> "the best way to get the right answer on the internet is not to ask a question; it's to post the wrong answer."

So true! My issue here isn't so much the bias but the poor reporting on what the reporter means by terms like "automating poverty". The difference between algorithms, AI and the organizational processes behind them are significant to the discussion. My view is that tech reporting in the media tends to be so inprecise and unfocused that the quality of discussion suffers as a result.

That's only true where and when both sides are able to safely speak and be heard. Hence why it needs the qualifier "on the internet".

In meatspace, and even on many parts of the internet, that just isn't true.

If a newspapers advocates for the devil, that's the only side people will hear.

> Are we really talking about a "flawed algorithm", for example, or simply the encoding of a badly designed government process?

Isn't that the same thing? If you take a flawed algorithm haphazardly implemented through government process and reify it in code, that doesn't fix any of the problems with it, and it may well make the situation worse by removing flexibility or the possibility for human intervention.

This is true, and I can see how technology may make these kinds of problems worse, but the underlying problem isn't the algorithm itself. The real problem is the process.

These are two distinct things. Understanding how technology exacerbates the problem is one thing. Attacking technology as the source of the problem is another.

> but the underlying problem isn't the algorithm itself. The real problem is the process.

So, the underlying problem is the algorithm, not the algorithm? That totally makes sense!

Also, if there are two contributing factors to a problem, and removing either would solve the problem, it is completely useless to arbitrarily declare that one of them is "the real problem".

One person need not be both sides of the argument. One journalist can bring out as strong of an argument as possible from one side, while another does the other.

There's no argument at all; it's just unproven opinions and a select few instances of systems failing.

>Are we really talking about a "flawed algorithm", for example, or simply the encoding of a badly designed government process?

There's a massive difference between people carrying out directions and machines carrying out the codification of those same directions. The more rigidly codified the system, the shittier life is for nonstandard cases. Machines are the ultimate rigid system.

Consider how much shittier someone's life is when a corner case happens and there's no one to help you resolve it. E.g https://gazette.com/news/born-in-the-usa-without-a-shred-of-...

> We'll never have the quality of discussion that's needed while there are fear mongering reporters like this subverting that conversation to the level of luddism.

We can and it's actually happening. So called "dangerous" journalism and "quality" discussion are not mutually exclusive. The article actually mentions one such discussion happening at the level of the UN, an inquiry headed by Special Rapporteur Philip Alston.

You're basically criticising the author and then taking credit for the idea that we need public discourse.

I agree with the author that we need a public discourse. I'm pointing out that starting the discourse with such a biased and undisciplined approach is counter-productive.