Register For Our Mailing List

Register to receive our free weekly newsletter including editorials.

Home / 341

When algorithms go rogue the havoc is all too human

From recommending a movie on Netflix to processing a job application, algorithms are increasingly part of the decision-making processes of our everyday lives.

But alongside this has come a growing awareness of the negative effects of algorithmic decision-making, with individuals denied access to social security or health insurance, or even spending longer in jail, all without any human intervention.

We have coined the term 'algorithmic pollution' to describe this phenomenon of unjustified, unfair, discriminatory or other harmful consequences of autonomous algorithmic decision-making. 

Managers and politicians typically get excited about new technologies, especially artificial intelligence (AI). They believe that we are developing powerful algorithms that are non-biased, efficient and better decision-makers than humans, which is a myth. Algorithms learn from human beings, and they learn their biases. 

Lack of understanding

Hiring algorithms, for example, draw on historical data to identify characteristics that predict job performance. As they learn from past decisions, algorithms reinforce historical biases, despite the best intentions of designers. 

And algorithms often rely on unchecked and potentially inaccurate data sets, which increases the risk of wrong and unfair decisions. 

Consider the case of a highly trained and experienced job candidate who was not short-listed. An investigation found that the algorithm rejected the candidate based on data from pharmacies where the candidate was once prescribed anti-depressants. 

Perhaps most bizarre of all is predictive policing. Almost 400,000 Chicago residents now have an official police ‘risk score’ calculated by an algorithm. While still secret and publicly unaccountable, these risk scores are used for decision-making and shape policing strategy.

There’s a worrying lack of understanding of the inherent limitations and dangers of algorithmic decision-making among politicians, managers and other professionals. While algorithms can be very useful in complex calculations and support decision-making, they cannot replace human judgment.

Unfair impacts

Naz Guler, a director at PwC who works in the area of transformation delivery, says:

“Increasingly, both in business and in government, I’m seeing that decisions are being entrusted to technology, and there’s a growing belief that ‘tech is always right’. I see increasing investment into AI systems and a growing reliance on AI models, without having a clear understanding of their capabilities, knowledge or training processes. 

We need to slow down and think clearly about what we’re doing, and the potential unfair impacts we will have. I would like to see businesses doing more to establish the foundations of trust in their algorithms and models.”

Guler sees the drive towards algorithmic solutions as the result of the convergence of huge increases in technology (such as data storage and computer power) plus the exponential growth of the volume of available data.

AI has enormous potential to improve public policy and services, as Guler believes data analytics can enable governments to develop policies to create a more equitable society, with better personalisation and customisation of services. She says:

“There’s also been a realisation that data itself is really valuable. When it’s augmenting human efficiencies, it contributes in a positive way. The danger comes when we rely on data-driven decisions with no human intervention or consideration.

In my view, if there’s a bias within the data, you will get inadvertent decisions. A good example here is facial recognition systems, where there are a lot of examples of racial bias. There’s a lack of transparency about what data we’re using and how that data is relevant in any given decision.”

Perpetuating prejudice

Perhaps the most unsettling area where algorithms are increasingly taking over from human decision-making is in law enforcement. Predictive policing systems such as Predpol, which use past data on crimes in order to focus policing resources into certain geographical areas, are used widely in the US.

In a resource-limited world, the idea of reducing crime by spending less money is very attractive,” says Lyria Bennett Moses, a Professor and Director of the Allens Hub for Technology, Law and Innovation at UNSW Law. “And the words that get used to describe predictive policing – objective, scientific, data driven – all have a positive spin.”

But while Bennett Moses admits that these systems can be good at predicting location-based crime such as burglary, a predictive policing system inevitably focuses on where crime is reported, rather than where it happens. 

These tools are less useful at predicting crimes with little location-based correlation, such as domestic violence (which are generally under-reported) or crimes policed in a racially based way, such as those connected with the use of offensive language. She says:

“Offensive language occurs a lot at, say, sporting events or in pubs. But where it actually gets reported is in areas like Sydney’s Redfern, with its large Indigenous population. If you police a community a lot, then you notice more of the crime that happens there. And that’s what goes into the database."

Other algorithmic systems, such as COMPAS, are now creating risk assessment scores that are used in decisions on criminal sentencing and parole. Pro Publica has found that this tool has a higher false positive rate (falsely flagging danger) for African Americans, but it goes beyond racial bias. 

A typical question that a system will ask is, are your parents still married, and if not, how old were you when they divorced? Presently, if an offender provides the ‘wrong’ answer to this, they could get refused parole, because they fall into a group that’s more likely to reoffend if released early. Bennett Moses says:

“The basic idea here is wrong. There are some kinds of decisions where these factors should be ignored, even if they are statistically relevant.

We’re relying on systems that affect people’s lives, so we need to take a step back. It’s not just the machine – racial skewing is not the machine. If the past data suggests that black people commit crimes in certain places (and disproportionately so due to targeted policing) then that’s where the machine will look. It becomes a perpetuator of prejudice."

Human responsibility

So, if the problem is clear, what then of the solution? Can businesses and governments police this themselves?

We need more regulation, and it needs to be well-evidenced and based on research. The new General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) in the EU is a good model to follow. Google and Facebook are already worried about these laws, so the EU is on the right track. Guler says:

“’Responsible AI’ is a bit of a buzzword at the moment, AI that’s designed to draw in human values. But the problem with this is – which values? Current business leaders in this sector are all North American, and for the most part, white men.

Guler sees a good parallel here with recent discussions over bio-ethics. 

There’s an idea that we should be lining up AI in terms of human rights. We need to think about fairness, transparency, and integrity in decision making.” 

For any decisions made by algorithms, there has to be a human responsibility identified. If algorithms are our future, then understanding, fighting against and preventing algorithmic pollution may save our collective dignity and humanity.

 

Dubravka Cecez-Kecmanovic is a Professor in the School of Information Systems and Technology Management at UNSW Business School. Her co-authors are Richard Vidgen, also a Professor at UNSW Business School, and Olivera Marjanovic, a Professor at UTS. This article was originally published on Business Think, an alliance partner of Firstlinks.

 

RELATED ARTICLES

8 ways that AI will impact how we invest

Every era has its hot stocks. Will AI defy gravity?

A 30-minute article using OpenAI … and there goes my job

banner

Most viewed in recent weeks

Australian house prices close in on world record

Sydney is set to become the world’s most expensive city for housing over the next 12 months, a new report shows. Our other major cities aren’t far behind unless there are major changes to improve housing affordability.

The case for the $3 million super tax

The Government's proposed tax has copped a lot of flack though I think it's a reasonable approach to improve the long-term sustainability of superannuation and the retirement income system. Here’s why.

Tariffs are a smokescreen to Trump's real endgame

Behind market volatility and tariff threats lies a deeper strategy. Trump’s real goal isn’t trade reform but managing America's massive debts, preserving bond market confidence, and preparing for potential QE.

The super tax and the defined benefits scandal

Australia's superannuation inequities date back to poor decisions made by Parliament two decades ago. If super for the wealthy needs resetting, so too does the defined benefits schemes for our public servants.

Meg on SMSFs: Withdrawing assets ahead of the $3m super tax

The super tax has caused an almighty scuffle, but for SMSFs impacted by the proposed tax, a big question remains: what should they do now? Here are ideas for those wanting to withdraw money from their SMSF.

Getting rich vs staying rich

Strategies to get rich versus stay rich are markedly different. Here is a look at the five main ways to get rich, including through work, business, investing and luck, as well as those that preserve wealth.

Latest Updates

SMSF strategies

Meg on SMSFs: Withdrawing assets ahead of the $3m super tax

The super tax has caused an almighty scuffle, but for SMSFs impacted by the proposed tax, a big question remains: what should they do now? Here are ideas for those wanting to withdraw money from their SMSF.

Superannuation

The huge cost of super tax concessions

The current net annual cost of superannuation tax subsidies is around $40 billion, growing to more than $110 billion by 2060. These subsidies have always been bad policy, representing a waste of taxpayers' money.

Planning

How to avoid inheritance fights

Inspired by the papal conclave, this explores how families can avoid post-death drama through honest conversations, better planning, and trial runs - so there are no surprises when it really matters.

Superannuation

Super contribution splitting

Super contribution splitting allows couples to divide before-tax contributions to super between spouses, maximizing savings. It’s not for everyone, but in the right circumstances, it can be a smart strategy worth exploring.

Economy

Trump vs Powell: Who will blink first?

The US economy faces an unprecedented clash in leadership styles, but the President and Fed Chair could both take a lesson from the other. Not least because the fiscal and monetary authorities need to work together.

Gold

Credit cuts, rising risks, and the case for gold

Shares trade at steep valuations despite higher risks of a recession. Amid doubts that a 60/40 portfolio can still provide enough protection through times of market stress, gold's record shines bright.

Investment strategies

Buffett acolyte warns passive investors of mediocre future returns

While Chris Bloomstan doesn't have the track record of his hero, it's impressive nonetheless. And he's recently warned that today has uncanny resemblances to the 1990s tech bubble and US returns are likely to be disappointing.

Sponsors

Alliances

© 2025 Morningstar, Inc. All rights reserved.

Disclaimer
The data, research and opinions provided here are for information purposes; are not an offer to buy or sell a security; and are not warranted to be correct, complete or accurate. Morningstar, its affiliates, and third-party content providers are not responsible for any investment decisions, damages or losses resulting from, or related to, the data and analyses or their use. To the extent any content is general advice, it has been prepared for clients of Morningstar Australasia Pty Ltd (ABN: 95 090 665 544, AFSL: 240892), without reference to your financial objectives, situation or needs. For more information refer to our Financial Services Guide. You should consider the advice in light of these matters and if applicable, the relevant Product Disclosure Statement before making any decision to invest. Past performance does not necessarily indicate a financial product’s future performance. To obtain advice tailored to your situation, contact a professional financial adviser. Articles are current as at date of publication.
This website contains information and opinions provided by third parties. Inclusion of this information does not necessarily represent Morningstar’s positions, strategies or opinions and should not be considered an endorsement by Morningstar.