Would you be as ok with it if the algorithm was charging black people more? Would you also reply "well, the data shows that black people claim more, so it's only fair - otherwise, white people are subsidizing black people driving"? At the end of the day, you have as much control over being a man as you do over being black, and are being penalized for the actions of others, that makes no sense.
>>When the choice is between a human and an algorithm, it's indefensible to choose the human.
I don't see any reason to believe blacks are worse drivers than whites. Especially after taking other variables into account, like economic status.
If there even is an effect, just like your gender example, I doubt it would be large our align with our stereotypes. E.g. it could be the case that whites are 1% worse drivers. And yeah make them pay more, again as a group they aren't being treated unfairly and anything else would amount to subsidies to them from other groups. That's not fair either.
>being penalized for the actions of others,
This different way of viewing this situation is perhaps why we disagree. I don't see it as a "penalty". If you live in a wood house, you will pay more on fire insurance. You aren't being penalized, your house is just objectively riskier. People in stone houses shouldn't be forced to subsidise your extra risk.
If you banned discrimination and removed all female drivers from the planet, insurance rates would go up to match what they are for men now. Men now pay what they would if there were only men.
>That's where I vehemently disagree.
Yeah well that's not an argument. And you can't make me bite the racism bullet if you aren't even going to acknowledge how disgusting your alternative is. After all your system has far more racism because human judges are racist. And why should someone spend twice as long in prison or be unable to get a loan because they are less attractive?
Its algorithms or nothing. Humans are not even an option. And in many cases nothing isn't an option either.
>>After all your system has far more racism because human judges are racist. And why should someone spend twice as long in prison or be unable to get a loan because they are less attractive?
Because I don't think we can quantify the justice system. Like other commenters in this thread have pointed out - the jury system is explicitly based on the idea of being judged "by your peers", with all the biases and ideas that it brings with it. Could you replace that with an AI? Maybe - but how will you know if you reached the "correct" judgement then? In some bizzare scenario you might arrive at a situation where AI reaches a judgement that literally no one is happy with - and at that point we're just ruled by a hivemind overlord, no? I'm being sarcastic, but there is a point where we serve the algorithm and not the other way around. I mean, don't get me wrong, I would gladly submit to Culture-style Minds(Iain Banks) because I think they were being fair as described in fiction, but I have no trust that whatever we develop will be that fair, we seem to be using scattershot systems that look at the lowest common denominator and make a decision based on something that is easy and obvious, or worse, we train them on existing systems. Which(and I am sorry for bringing up the racism example again) - AI trained on the current population of the US prison system would conclude that it has to target certain groups more because...well, clearly they commit more crime! I have no trust it would be anything other than a shallow, simple-stat based oracle that everyone would listen to.
>>When the choice is between a human and an algorithm, it's indefensible to choose the human.
That's where I vehemently disagree.