Some takeaways from the earlier half of this article:
"Increasingly, the company is ceding its human-resources operation to machines as well, using software not only to manage workers in its warehouses but to oversee contract drivers, independent delivery companies and even the performance of its office workers. People familiar with the strategy say Chief Executive Officer Jeff Bezos believes machines make decisions more quickly and accurately than people, reducing costs and giving Amazon a competitive advantage.
Amazon knew delegating work to machines would lead to mistakes and damaging headlines, these former managers said, but decided it was cheaper to trust the algorithms than pay people to investigate mistaken firings so long as the drivers could be replaced easily.
Amazon has automated its human-resources operation more than most companies. But the use of algorithms to make decisions affecting people’s lives is increasingly common. Machines can approve loan applications, and even decide if someone deserves parole or should stay behind bars. Computer science experts have called for regulations forcing companies to be transparent about how algorithms affect people, giving them the information they need to call out and correct mistakes. Legislators have studied the matter but have been slow to enact rules to prevent harm. In December, Senator Chris Coons, Democrat of Delaware, introduced the Algorithmic Fairness Act. It would require the Federal Trade Commission to create rules that ensure algorithms are being used equitably and that those affected by their decisions are informed and have the opportunity to reverse mistakes. So far his proposal has gone nowhere."
New general rule I've come up with:
Use computers to manage computers and humans to manage humans. (And humans to manage computers as an extra safety net, but never the reverse. Computers...are tools. Tools need humans to work.)
It's some things in this article that put dealing with Amazon into perspective. Mainly, that its workers are under awful conditions because its execs have delegated overseeing them to these algorithms. (And on this note, a while back on the science side of Twitter, someone made a point that faulty automatized computer systems shouldn't really be called "algorithms" because algorithms are supposed to work. Not certain how true that is, but I like the sentiment.) Like, remember when news first broke of the inhumane conditions Amazon's warehouse workers faced? Peeing in bottles and all that? And how Amazon didn't seem very...motivated to mitigate the controversy? To really address what the whole ordeal was about, and fix the issues? Well...this is why. Execs were perfectly fine taking PR hits so long as they could still get people coming into their revolving door without having to change a thing—which, judging from the huge increase in Amazon hiring commercials I've seen while watching YouTube lately, they can and still are.
They're really letting these computers play with people's lives, and ignoring the 5% of the time the systems have wrongfully penalized the drivers (and Amazon workers overall) because ~allegedly~ 95% of the time the algorithms are working as intended. And I put "allegedly" on that because in reading this article in full, and learning of the types of things drivers would get flagged for, I don't think at all that they're rare flukes. Like the problems these drivers would get penalized for seem common, expected even—apartment complexes being locked because deliveries are happening too early or late in the day, faulty Amazon lockers to drop-off packages at, package pick-up taking a while because of too many drivers waiting, deliveries taking longer than the two-hour window because of problematic roads, the car randomly being incapacitated in some way like getting a nail in a tire, etc. The types of things that, arguably, should be built into the algorithm to always be properly addressed after...oh, I'd say...the first handful of times they were reported. Yet they're not. And it doesn't seem like they're ever going to be because, hey, if one driver is wrongfully terminated, they're not gonna bother contesting it because they're already strapped for cash, and there's an inbox of résumés for new ones just waiting.
Maybe Amazon's computer management systems can be referred to as an "algorithm" because, to me, it seems like they're working exactly as the execs and managers want them to.
