alt Hacker News > if the algorithm cannot be explained in easily understandable language (as determined by a jury), then it's illegal.
- A*
- VNMC Sampling
- Runge–Kutta
- PDE solvers
- Integrals
- Monte Carlo Integration
Replies
Come on, where did systemd come into the picture? Don't be obtuse.
No one is saying that the algorithm should be three if statements that the jury can understand in 30 seconds.
As an example, I'd say that doing maximum bipartite matching using factors like proximity, rating, etc, for drivers/gigs is a reasonable thing that you can explain to the jury. It's not that they have to understand the proof for the algorithm itself.
The most if not only important thing is that you should be be able to convince the jury that you're not including criteria in the matching process that is actively or accidentally malicious towards the gig workers.
The problem with high dimensional LP solvers, optimisation problems, PID controllers, or other systems with a feedback loop is that it's very tempting to include revenue (or a confounding factor thereof) into your objective. This can, as you might imagine, lead to something that harms the workers.
On the other hand, worker satisfaction is much much harder to quantify and is not included in the objectives at all usually. Number of active work-hours and simple things like that are not typically a good signal because of the fundamental nature of most gig work in this context -- they are doing it out of necessity, and taking a risk losing out on employee protections.
Which is the point : "computing" shouldn't be involved in these decisions.
You’ve just rejected an idea because your interpretation of it takes a severe path where use of randomness is incompatible with documenting an algorithm. Flowchart the process “flip a coin” to demonstrate why this world-ending interpretation isn’t so.