This is a perfect example of "AI gone wrong" even though there was no AI involved.
The costs of insurance are based on actuarial tables, which are really just calculations based on large chunks of historical data, much like an AI. And much like an AI, the result essentially magnifies the biases that already exist in the data (biases that may be accurate or may not be).
The tables, nor the AI, care about ethics or perception. They are simply the result of the inputs given.
Do men really have more tickets and accidents? Maybe. Or maybe they just get caught more.
It just highlights how careful we have to be about biases, real or accidental, as we rely more and more on mathematical models based on data.
The costs of insurance are based on actuarial tables, which are really just calculations based on large chunks of historical data, much like an AI. And much like an AI, the result essentially magnifies the biases that already exist in the data (biases that may be accurate or may not be).
The tables, nor the AI, care about ethics or perception. They are simply the result of the inputs given.
Do men really have more tickets and accidents? Maybe. Or maybe they just get caught more.
It just highlights how careful we have to be about biases, real or accidental, as we rely more and more on mathematical models based on data.