The Irony of Bias

In several reports, the feedback and perspectives provided by persons within a certain group, and matching a particular profile were routinely labeled as: "irrelevant" "insignificant" "unnecessary" or even "harmful."  For ease of reference, these Datasets are referenced as DEI. 

Other research indicates that performance reviews of DEI candidates routinely included language that would be objectively described as emotionally-charged, biased, discriminatory, lacking logic, or contrary to the weight of known and available evidence. In fact,  biases that were clear and obvious were noted at a significantly higher rate for reviews associated with candidates with a DEI profile.  Emotionally-charged labels were used even in cases in which the facts were objectively observed and could be visually or verbally demonstrated and proven. 

Such blatant unfairness was compounded by the fact that such labels were then fed through intelligence processing software called an "AI" whose purpose is to facilitate the automation of the corporate decision making process. In general, corporate decision making is a lengthy and complex process, involving the review, feedback, and input of multiple corporate persons, divisions, departments, roles, titles, and functions.

If a black box algorithm represents the totality of every possible corporate decision for which an algorithm is instructed to produce a result -- and further considering how corporations use the term "algorithm" to insulate themselves from liability -- and further considering that some entities rely upon the "algorithmic defense" and the "cover of algorithms" to mask their involvement in controversial and undesirable outcomes -- how could any serious jurist take a hands off approach toward their creation?

Despite the role and importance of algorithms, the reality is that the term "algorithm" is considered to be such a "technical sounding" term that most U.S. GCO attorneys would simply ignore it, falsely believing that no "serious attorney" would ever be bothered by a "thing" so "technical" (That's pretty much the current U.S GCO standard.  If a word "sounds" too technical, most GCO attorneys will simply ignore it).

The time for legal arrogance and technical ineptitude regarding "technology law" and the associated regulatory, policy, and legal concerns -- needs to be over.  Research has demonstrated that algorithms are created based on inherently biased programming. The data further confirm that "black box algorithms" are the leading cause of biased outcomes, thus leading to the obvious conclusion that "black box algorithms" are inherently irrational, and therefore subject to programmatic rejection (without prejudice, or course).

Black box algorithms are the "narcissists" of the gaming and programming worlds - regarded as un-resolvable in the absence of deep insight and intervention.  Obviously, from a programming perspective, the creation of such a high maintenance process for the purpose of interfacing with such  a high maintenance entity is unreasonable and impractical.  That's the real reason "black box algorithms" are rejected.  Too much work to decipher their faulty "logic."

The Black one, filled with data, datasets, profiles, et cetera, Flagged and Tagged DEI. A near-literal Black Hole of Thought, pursuant to which persons fitting such profiles are essentially programmed out of existence, effectuated through the use of Backwards-Looking Content and Programming, designed to keep viewers trapped in the Past, repeating destructive habits and patterns, over and over again, with no reasonable opportunity for Advancement.