There is a certain amount of discrimination in the algorithm, and its opaqueness allows this discrimination to persist without correction. This also makes people increasingly question the rationality of the algorithm.

Obviously, a simple score judgment here is different from the facts. Of course, pet owners are likely to abuse drugs with the name of the treatment of pets, but there are really pets for pets. Doctors and hospitals cannot just rely on the result of a simple data analysis, but should make professional judgments on the patient's situation.

Third-party regulatory agencies are necessary, they need to monitor the fair and accuracy of the score model, and also require monitoring score usage.

We cannot judge the correctness of the score, but this score will affect us. Only those who develop scores have the opportunity to fix the score, but this is also based on individual or team views, and cannot guarantee the fairness of the score.

As it stands, algorithms cannot solve the problem of discrimination. Search engines simply output results based on people's searches. Perhaps we need more social education efforts to eliminate such discrimination

In the Internet age, information should be more diverse, but the reality is that the views of a few people are ignored, and discrimination is more serious. We need fairer algorithms to eliminate such discrimination

In the current era of informatization and networking, the results of search engines have had a certain degree of influence on national values and worldviews. In this case, search engine has a political factor.

Information borders are hard to cross, but in some ways that's not a bad thing. For example, language, if another language appears during the search, the searcher may not be able to understand it, and this is obviously not the search result he needs.

More data helps us better understand people's behavior, conduct some sociological research, and provide data theory for making good policy. But it also violates people's privacy and sometimes shows social instability. We need to use these data rationally and find a balance.

As technology advances, this data is used by more and more departments, slowly moving from a concern to a degree of surveillance

With immigration on the rise, the census is not just a need for social research, but a data basis for policy making. As a result, the need for a rational division of the population has also begun to increase.

The progress of the census also represents the progress of the society, as immigration continues to increase, the census continues to improve

When the period of mass immigration came, the population division became more fair, objective and friendly. But discrimination between races still exists. Is there a more equitable way of dividing the population that can help eliminate this discrimination?

Some policies are clearly biased towards race, such as immigration policy. This discriminatory treatment further exacerbates discrimination between different races.

Before ancestry, people were divided according to social status and way of life, without racial distinction, is it fairer?

It turns out that companies are profit oriented, and when it comes to addressing algorithmic discrimination and social morality, they choose to run away most of the time

When the data is already input with bias and hate speech, the algorithm cannot make the final result fair and peaceful. The question asked by the doctor is ethical, but Google did not accept her opinion

In most cases, extreme events are more likely to attract people's attention. Even the media will distort facts to dramatic effect to gain attention. And this makes most of the reported and focused information on the Internet more extreme, but it does not mean that extreme events often occur in reality.

The Internet data sample is uneven, and some poor or remote areas have very few user samples, so the conclusions based on Internet data are also biased towards the majority of the society as a whole, and do not take into account minority groups

Te Hiku is very sober and selfless; he firmly defends the future interests of Māori and the right to use data

This is a high achievement, and it also makes us realize that saving a language requires the efforts of its users

Private companies are usually profit-oriented. Multilingualism in developing regions cannot bring sufficient benefits to companies. Therefore, some international organizations and policy orientations are needed to help these small languages.

Refugee data is collected to better serve and house them, but is subject to algorithmic discrimination, which ultimately turns into monitoring and controlling them

Is it really fair to judge his sentence on the basis of risk status? They violated the same laws when they were indicted but were sentenced to different sentences because of different risk statuses. This means that those who are judged to be high-risk will have additional penalty periods for things they haven't done yet. Is it a form of discrimination subconsciously?

Even if the backgrounds of the two people are completely similar at present, they will make different choices in the future. Can we continuously monitor these people and keep updating their risk status? It may be true that their status is low risk at the moment, but something that happens over time may increase his risk status. Should a static single risk status be the final judgment conclusion?

Productivity rose but worker wages did not. From this point of view, workers’ interests are harmed not because of the application of artificial intelligence, but more because of the impact of compensation and welfare policies.

In fact, the application of artificial intelligence can liberate people from boring and repetitive work and engage in more creative work, while robots assist people in completing simple and trivial tasks.

Wearable work devices collect more data about when workers are at work, and use this data to quantify their work. However, it is unbiased to judge the work of workers only by working hours, etc., and the monitoring of workers by these devices violates the legitimate rights and interests of workers. The data should be collected more properly, and the results of the data analysis should only be used as a reference for the final conclusion.

The lack of openness and transparency of the “black box at work" raises questions about its fairness. And because its procedures are kept secret from the outside world, it also makes it easier for insiders to manipulate to get the desired results. This is against the interests of candidates, but there are currently no laws and guidelines to regulate such black boxes. Is there any good way to monitor the operation of the black box?

The application of the Internet can indeed transcend the limitations of human differences. But since no one knows if you're a dog or not, there's a high chance that people will become extreme on the Internet.

Associating preferences based on names alone, whether it is the data itself that discriminates, and the algorithm just perpetuates this discrimination, should we also find a way to eliminate data discrimination?

Big data technology also plays a major role in the official sector. However, at the same time, some problems of big data, such as discrimination and privacy leakage, cannot be solved by improving algorithms alone, and they also require the regulation of these behaviors by official departments.

The selection and processing of big data and the selection of models all require manual operations, which will inevitably reflect the subjective consciousness of some processors. This may also make the results less objective and fair, further leading to discrimination

We should pay attention to the negative impact of technological innovation. At present, big data has brought certain problems. Such as algorithm discrimination, personal privacy leakage, etc.

As the author says, 'ethics' is a very broad and yet to be defined thing. What is good and what is bad, who defines it, and does society accept it? Everyone's worldview and values are different, so there is no unified 'ethics' definition in society today.

'Ethics' is indeed a very broad point of view, and the author hopes to divide morality in more detail and solve these problems step by step. such as inequality in data, which is something we can currently address by improving technology.

AI systems collect people's data and potentially use it for research on user behavior, making people feel that their privacy has been violated, and this is a pressing issue faced by internet companies.

The establishment of committees alone will not solve the problem of AI ethics. It requires the cooperation and efforts of the company's overall system, culture and engineers. The committee can only play the role of monitoring and judgment.

Individual liberty should be guaranteed, but unlimited freedom will inevitably harm the liberty of others. Therefore, we need to pursue a balance between individual freedom and social harmony.

This is a very interesting point of view. Personality is complex and multi-faceted, and rationality is one of aspects of personality. And artificial intelligence can only be built based on rationality at present, so it is a simplified form of complex personality.