Algorithmic Parenting: NYC’s AI Tool Puts Families at Unfair Risk

Hot Take:

Wow, NYC ACS, could you be any more of a Big Brother cliché? Using an algorithm to decide who’s a “high-risk” family sounds like a plot twist from a rejected Black Mirror episode. It’s like they’ve decided to take the human out of human services. Didn’t anyone think maybe, just maybe, this isn’t the best place to automate? I mean, who needs transparency and accountability when you can have 279 mysterious variables and a heap of societal bias? Bravo, ACS, bravo.

Key Points:

• NYC’s ACS is using an AI tool to categorize families as “high risk” based on 279 variables.
• The algorithmic system operates with a lack of transparency and accountability.
• There’s evidence of racial bias, with Black families facing ACS investigations at seven times the rate of white families.
• Similar systems in other areas, like Allegheny County, have shown systemic biases and inaccuracies.
• Efforts to deploy such AI tools elsewhere have faced rejections and challenges due to concerns about equity and reliability.

Algorithmic Shenanigans: The ACS Edition

In the latest episode of “What Were They Thinking?”, the New York City Administration for Children’s Services (ACS) has rolled out a secretive AI tool to label families as “high risk.” Using a hodgepodge of 279 variables, this system brands families for intensified scrutiny, all while leaving the public in the dark about its inner workings. The data feeding this algorithm hails from a time when selfies were still a novelty, analyzing cases from 2013 and 2014. But the real kicker? No one really knows how many cases were considered, or if this magical algorithm has been audited for reliability. Spoiler alert: probably not.

Bias? What Bias?

The AI tool isn’t just shrouded in mystery; it’s also accused of amplifying existing racial biases. Black families in NYC are subject to ACS investigations at seven times the rate of white families, a disparity that the algorithm seems to exacerbate. This tool is like an equal opportunity discriminator, making sure everyone gets a fair share of inequality. Families, attorneys, and even caseworkers are left scratching their heads as they have no clue when or why the system flags a case. It’s like a game of Russian roulette, but with more paperwork and less accountability.

Allegheny’s Algorithm Adventures

NYC isn’t the first to play with algorithmic fire. Allegheny County in Pennsylvania had its own AI debacle, flagging a disproportionate number of Black children for “mandatory” investigation. Social workers disagreed with the algorithm’s risk scores about a third of the time, proving that sometimes the only thing worse than human error is machine error. When a judge dared to ask for a family’s algorithmic score, the county balked, claiming it might influence legal proceedings. Oh, the irony. If the scores aren’t good enough for court, perhaps they shouldn’t be good enough for determining the fate of families either.

Global Rejection: A Cautionary Tale

As if we needed more evidence, similar AI tools have been rejected elsewhere. New Zealand gave a thumbs down to such technology due to concerns it would unfairly target Māori families. California developed a similar tool but decided to ditch it, citing racial equity concerns. These cautionary tales scream a common theme: algorithms aren’t ready to play judge, jury, and executioner in child services. Until we have systems that are transparent, reliable, and free from bias, perhaps we should leave life-altering decisions to the humans. You know, the ones who can actually be held accountable.

The Perils of AI in Child Services

In conclusion, the deployment of AI tools in child services is fraught with peril. These systems often lack the transparency and accountability needed to be trusted. At worst, they perpetuate social inequalities and remove accountability mechanisms when agencies err. Before we let algorithms run amok in life-critical areas, let’s ensure they’re subjected to rigorous scrutiny and independent audits. Otherwise, we risk turning real lives into dystopian tales of algorithmic overreach. And nobody wants to live in a world where their family’s future is decided by a black box.