We don't want AI models out there that we not understand, and therefore don't really trust...
Good AI models should indeed be explainable, fair, trustable, and accurate.
Remember Amazons ''
AI recruiter'' ?
Apparently:
The company’s experimental hiring tool used artificial intelligence to give job candidates scores ranging from one to five stars — much like shoppers rate products on Amazon...
Sounded awesome, here you would :
Literally have an engine that you could give 100 resumes, and it would spit out the top five, which Amazon would then hire.
But, but... human recruiters would never trust a resume alone. And when you
screen resumes, it makes sense to give unusual candidates a chance.
Diversity of backgrounds and different point of views is valuable in a team.
Not exactly so, with this hiring tool...
By 2015, the company realized the system was not rating candidates for software developer jobs
and other technical posts in a gender-neutral way...
Apparently, the systems models were trained to vet resumes based on
resumes submitted to the company over a 10-year period.
And, as most of these resumes came from men (this being the tech industry),
the system had taught itself that male candidates were preferable.
And that female resumes should be penalized.
Not good. And certainly unlawful, as US law states that any business model (for dealing with customers)
is not allowed to treat any group of people more than 20 % different than any other group...
And it doesn't stop there. AI is apparently also sending people to jail, and getting it wrong...
1 in 38 adult Americans (2.2 million) is under some form of correctional supervision.
Under immense pressure to reduce prison numbers without risking a rise in crime,
courtrooms across the US have turned to automated tools in attempts to shuffle defendants through the legal system as efficiently and safely as possible.
Police departments use predictive algorithms to strategize about where to send their ranks.
But the most controversial tool by far comes after police have made an arrest.
Say hello to criminal risk assessment algorithms!
You may have already spotted the problem. Modern-day risk assessment tools are often driven by algorithms trained on historical crime data.
As a result, the algorithm could amplify and perpetuate embedded biases and generate even more bias-tainted data to feed a vicious cycle [3].
Again: Not good, and certainly not good, if the tool itself is a ''
blackbox'' technology, where you can't ask the
model how it came to its conclusion...
Indeed,
Explainable AI, where results
can be understood by human experts, gives a much higher level of trust.
Super important, if we really want humans to accept algorithmic prescriptions...
3.3. Stories beat Statistics: Master the Art & Science of Data Storytelling.
Brent Dykes (Senior Director of Data Strategy at
Domo) talked about ''
Stories beat Statistics: Master the Art & Science of Data Storytelling''.
At
Domo they want us to:
Tell a story with data
(Curated dashboards help guide data analysis, so your data can tell the story you want it to tell).
Or, at the very least, share our data stories more effectively.
According to Dykes,
stories is something we need as humans.
Just as we need shelter and nourishment in order to survive.
People hear statistics, but they feel stories.
Stories are memorable:
Jennifer Aaker, a marketing professor at Stanford’s Graduate School of Business, had each of her students give a 1-minute pitch.
Only one in 10 students used a story within his or her pitch, while the others stuck to more traditional pitch elements,
such as facts and figures. The professor then asked the class to write down everything they remembered about each pitch:
5 percent of students cited a statistic, but a whopping 63 percent remembered the story [4].
Rather cleverly, Dykes reminded us that, some, people
seem to think that crafting a story around their data seem like an unnecessary, time-consuming effort.
They think that insights and/or facts should be enough.
But, unfortunately, this point of view is based on the flawed assumption that
business decisions are based solely on logic and reason.
In fact, neuroscientists have confirmed that decisions are often based on emotion, not logic.
E.g. Antonio Damasio has described patients,
who had brain damage in an area that helped to process emotions (prefrontal cortex),
that struggled to make (even) basic decisions when choosing between alternatives.
Apparently, their basic decision-making skills were significantly impaired by the lack of emotional judgment [5].
See also Review: ''The Feeling of What Happens'' (d).
In his book
Effective Data Storytelling, he drives home the message:
Stories can influence decisions and drive change. Most other books focus only on data visualization,
while neglecting the powerful narrative and psychological aspects of telling stories with data.
Here it is shown how the three central elements of data storytelling ―data, narrative, and visuals -
can be used for maximum effectiveness
(For more, see Twitter, userprofile AnalyticsHero).
Still, the stories have to based on (our) data. After all, a non-fact based story is basicly a forgery.
All things considered, presenting the story (based on the data) is the all important step.
Here Dykes recommended that we took
a look at
Gustav Freytags model for a drama: