
We Need an FDA for Algorithms - eaguyhn
http://nautil.us/issue/66/clockwork/we-need-an-fda-for-algorithms
======
Kaveren
> "So I think we need something like the FDA for algorithms."

I can't say for sure that the author or interviewee even knows what the
definition of an algorithm is.

No, the government absolutely should _not_ be involved in regulating
algorithms. You'll be able to enjoy a burdensome system for anyone that isn't
a massive corporation. Good luck competing against Google when every 10 lines
of code you write, you need to seek government approval.

I know you're not supposed to be dismissive on Hacker News, but it's so
difficult to take this seriously when you display this level of technical
ignorance.

~~~
hsienmaneja
Unchecked algorithms at scale have already had a significant and often
detrimental impact on society.

A solution is to break up and/or regulate FAANG sufficiently such that
algorithmic regulations do not impede David’s from reasonably competing.

Or, such regulations could also be targeted at bigger players past a certain
size, and not apply as strictly to smaller scale applications. It is the broad
scale application of an algorithm that often facilitates its ability to be
effective, after all.

~~~
AkshatM
Do you have an example of 'an unchecked algorithm at scale'?

~~~
m-p-3
Your Facebook news feed?

AFAIK, no one else outside of people working at Facebook can see how the
algorithm decides what should be on top of your feed.

------
the_af
From TFA:

"Hannah Fry points out something interesting about the phrase “Hello World.”
It’s never been quite clear, she says, whether the phrase—which is frequently
the entire output of a student’s first computer program—is supposed to be
attributed to the program, awakening for the first time, or to the programmer,
announcing their triumphant first creation."

Did she try asking programmers instead of guessing?

~~~
emiliobumachar
Seconded. It's obviously supposed to be attributed to the program. The
tradition extends to very experienced programmers trying out a new language or
a new complex deployment setup.

------
forgottenpass
So I need to file for premarket approval every time I want to use a b-tree?

Jest aside, I think there is a real lack of clarity in what Fry is asking for
here. You don't need a computer to bumble your way into reinventing redlining,
yet at the same time a single algorithmic tool can be benign or morally
terrifying based on application.

What are the boundaries Fry seeks and what moral principles do we base them
on? What mechanism(s) does she envision as proper to enforce them? That bit
about pre-market approval isn't entirely a joke - the analogy to FDA
specifically rather than another regulator implies either pre-market approval
processes or a bad author. How do we categorize which pieces of software to
subject to what levels of scrutiny?

I don't mean to poo-poo the idea of getting limits around software that is
making more and more impactful decisions. Hopefully the reason this article is
so light on detail is because the reporter doesn't understand the subject
matter. But Fry's response to the data ownership question is the sign of
someone that always punts to "experts" when pressed on the finer details.

------
ratmice
Interestingly, there is the NIST dictionary of algorithms and data structures,
which has been around since 1998, and was updated as recently as last week.

[https://xlinux.nist.gov/dads/](https://xlinux.nist.gov/dads/)

~~~
pasbesoin
I thought of NIST.

And of how many government deployed algorithms should be documented and
evaluated, as a condition of use. For example, "risk" profilers that are being
used to determine prison sentencing and parole/supervision provisions.

Health care related algorithms are another obvious candidate.

------
AllegedAlec
They're not talking about algorithms, from between reading the lines, but
scummy businesses which sell fake software products.

Question is: why then are they calling them algorithms.

