Hm, looking back on this, I think only part of the resolution follow in later posts.
The part that follows is how the letters “fair” can be used to refer to different algorithms by different people, and each feels like they’re referring to a fixed thing, because they are. But arguing by definition won’t get you anywhere.
The part that isn’t covered is how people actually can try to be fair, rather than being algorithm_15833 - that is, a good argument will actually convince some people that they had the definition of “fair” wrong, and then they’ll actually do that new thing. It’s amazing. Clearly people are following some method in accepting or rejecting arguments, but this method is more like a treasure map that finds fairness, while the word “fair” refers to the buck-stops-here algorithm that is fairness, even if you don’t know what that algorithm is!
And there’s the stuff about human politics, but that’s hard :P
Hm, looking back on this, I think only part of the resolution follow in later posts.
The part that follows is how the letters “fair” can be used to refer to different algorithms by different people, and each feels like they’re referring to a fixed thing, because they are. But arguing by definition won’t get you anywhere.
The part that isn’t covered is how people actually can try to be fair, rather than being algorithm_15833 - that is, a good argument will actually convince some people that they had the definition of “fair” wrong, and then they’ll actually do that new thing. It’s amazing. Clearly people are following some method in accepting or rejecting arguments, but this method is more like a treasure map that finds fairness, while the word “fair” refers to the buck-stops-here algorithm that is fairness, even if you don’t know what that algorithm is!
And there’s the stuff about human politics, but that’s hard :P