Tag archieven: Organizational behaviour

Why Mathematical Rationalists make Irrational Decisions

Book Review of: B. Recht (2026). The Irrational Decision. How we gave Computers the Power to Choose for Us, Princeton University Press, Princeton & Oxford, x + 270 pp.

Voor een Nederlandse vertaling klik hier.

Dr G.J. van Bussel

The author

Benjamin Recht is Professor in the Department of Electrical Engineering and Computer Sciences at the University of California, Berkeley. He has received several prizes and awards recognizing the quality and impact of his research and has served on the editorial boards of the Journal of Machine Learning Research and Mathematical Programming. He is co‑founder of the Conference on Learning for Decision and Control. Recht’s research group investigates how to design machine learning systems that remain robust when interacting with dynamic and uncertain environments. He develops reliable benchmarks and baselines for the assessment of performance of machine learning technology. He has demonstrated, for example, that standard machine learning theory often mischaracterizes the behaviour of deep neural networks and that a number of results in personalized medicine overstate their practical utility. His research is strengthened by close collaborations with scholars in applied domains such as computational imaging and robotics. 1

The key thesis

The key thesis is introduced and presented in the first chapter. Recht prefers the term ‘mathematical rationality’ to describe the narrow, statistical conception of reason that inspired the desire to build computers, shaped how they would eventually operate, and constrained the kinds of problems they would be considered well suited to solve. The Irrational Decision traces how, in the 1940s, mathematicians converged on a distinctive definition of rationality in which every decision is cast as a statistical problem of risk. This notion of rationality is heavily mathematical, and it has proved attractive to hyper‑online rationalists, public intellectuals, and billionaire technologists who (quite irrational) take their own success as evidence of uniquely clear thinking rather than luck or structural advantage.

Lees verder

Share This:

The Unaccountability Machine

Book review of: D. Davies (2024). The Unaccountability Machine. Why Big Systems Make Terrible Decisions — and How the World Lost Its Mind, Profile Books, 304 pp.

A passenger is refused permission to board an aircraft and makes a plea to a sympathetic flight attendant. Regrettably, the passenger’s grievance pertains to a company policy, and the flight attendant is unable to assist. This scenario exemplifies a scenario in which the onus of decision-making is entrusted not to an individual, but rather to a set of predetermined guidelines.

‘The unsettling thing about this conversation is that you progressively realise that the human being you are speaking to is only allowed to follow a set of processes and rules that pass on decisions made at a higher level of the corporate hierarchy. It’s often a frustrating experience; you want to get angry, but you can’t really blame the person you’re talking to. Somehow, the airline has constructed a state of affairs where it can speak to you with the anonymous voice of an amorphous corporation, but you have to talk back to it as if it were a person like yourself.’ (p. 16)

Davies poses the question of why errors and crises never appear to be attributable to any specific individual or entity. The blame is often attributed to ’the system’, ’the computer’, ’the algorithm’, ’the AI’, or similar entities. Davies terms this phenomenon an ‘accountability sink’, a structural element that absorbs or obscures the consequences of a decision, thereby preventing direct accountability.

The phenomenon of accountability sinks, as postulated by Davies, serves to impede individuals from both willing and unwillingly making or changing decisions and, consequently, being held directly accountable for them.

Lees verder

Share This: