BEGIN:VCALENDAR
VERSION:2.0
PRODID:-//A3veen.nl - ECPv6.16.2//NONSGML v1.0//EN
CALSCALE:GREGORIAN
METHOD:PUBLISH
X-WR-CALNAME:A3veen.nl
X-ORIGINAL-URL:https://www.a3veen.nl
X-WR-CALDESC:Evenementen voor A3veen.nl
REFRESH-INTERVAL;VALUE=DURATION:PT1H
X-Robots-Tag:noindex
X-PUBLISHED-TTL:PT1H
BEGIN:VTIMEZONE
TZID:Europe/Amsterdam
BEGIN:DAYLIGHT
TZOFFSETFROM:+0100
TZOFFSETTO:+0200
TZNAME:CEST
DTSTART:20240331T010000
END:DAYLIGHT
BEGIN:STANDARD
TZOFFSETFROM:+0200
TZOFFSETTO:+0100
TZNAME:CET
DTSTART:20241027T010000
END:STANDARD
BEGIN:DAYLIGHT
TZOFFSETFROM:+0100
TZOFFSETTO:+0200
TZNAME:CEST
DTSTART:20250330T010000
END:DAYLIGHT
BEGIN:STANDARD
TZOFFSETFROM:+0200
TZOFFSETTO:+0100
TZNAME:CET
DTSTART:20251026T010000
END:STANDARD
BEGIN:DAYLIGHT
TZOFFSETFROM:+0100
TZOFFSETTO:+0200
TZNAME:CEST
DTSTART:20260329T010000
END:DAYLIGHT
BEGIN:STANDARD
TZOFFSETFROM:+0200
TZOFFSETTO:+0100
TZNAME:CET
DTSTART:20261025T010000
END:STANDARD
END:VTIMEZONE
BEGIN:VEVENT
DTSTART;VALUE=DATE:20250611
DTEND;VALUE=DATE:20250612
DTSTAMP:20260528T072638
CREATED:20250611T124658Z
LAST-MODIFIED:20250702T130916Z
UID:127585-1749600000-1749686399@www.a3veen.nl
SUMMARY:Inside Amsterdam’s high-stakes experiment to create fair welfare AI - publication
DESCRIPTION:The Dutch city of Amsterdam thought it could break a decade-long trend of implementing discriminatory algorithms\, its failure raises the question: can these programs ever be fair? \n\nThere’s an ongoing debate about whether algorithms can ever be fair when tasked with making decisions that shape people’s lives. Over the past several years of efforts to use artificial intelligence in this way\, examples of collateral damage have mounted: nonwhite job applicants weeded out of job application pools in the US\, families being wrongly flagged for child abuse investigations in Japan\, and low-income residents being denied food subsidies in India. Proponents of these assessment systems argue that they can create more efficient public services by doing more with less and\, in the case of welfare systems specifically\, reclaim money that is allegedly being lost from the public purse. In practice\, many were poorly designed from the start. They sometimes factor in personal characteristics in a way that leads to discrimination\, and sometimes they have been deployed without testing for bias or effectiveness. In general\, they offer few options for people to challenge—or even understand—the automated actions directly affecting how they live. \nWhen Amsterdam set out to create an AI model to detect potential welfare fraud\, officials thought it could break a decade-plus trend of discriminatory algorithms that had harmed people all over the world. City officials in the welfare department believed they could build technology that would prevent fraud while protecting citizens’ rights. They followed these emerging best practices and invested a vast amount of time and money in a project that eventually processed live welfare applications. But in their pilot\, they found that the system they’d developed was still not fair and effective. Why? Lighthouse Reports\, MIT Technology Review\, and the Dutch newspaper Trouw have gained unprecedented access to the system to try to find out. In response to a public records request\, the city disclosed multiple versions of the algorithm and data on how it evaluated real-world welfare applicants\, offering us unique insight into whether\, under the best possible conditions\, algorithmic systems can deliver on their ambitious promises.   \n\nLinks:\nInside Amsterdam’s high-stakes experiment to create fair welfare AI \nAmsterdam wilde met AI de bijstand eerlijker en efficiënter maken. Het liep anders
URL:https://www.a3veen.nl/event/inside-amsterdams-high-stakes-experiment-to-create-fair-welfare-ai-publication/
CATEGORIES:AI,Amsterdam,IT,Maatschappij,Mensenrechten,Privacy
END:VEVENT
END:VCALENDAR