Search papers, labs, and topics across Lattice.
This paper formalizes and rigorously evaluates common objections to algorithmic monoculture, where a single algorithm is used for decision-making across a domain. They analyze critiques related to systematic exclusion, agency/gaming, and information aggregation/exploration. The authors find that many commonly cited objections to monoculture are not supported, and while some concerns are valid, they don't represent a decisive argument against monoculture in general.
Algorithmic monoculture, the boogeyman of homogenous AI decision-making, may not be as bad as we thought, with many common criticisms failing under rigorous scrutiny.
Algorithmic decision-making is replacing idiosyncratic human judgment in domains such as hiring, lending, and criminal justice. This shift promises increased consistency, but many scholars worry that it can go too far. They warn of the dangers of algorithmic monoculture, in which all decisions across a domain are made using a single algorithm. We systematically evaluate a range of objections to monoculture, formalizing and rigorously assessing familiar critiques alongside novel ones. These objections concern systematic exclusion, agency and gaming, and information aggregation and exploration. We conclude that monoculture is less problematic than its critics have supposed: commonly cited objections fail, and while other objections have some force, they are not decisive against monoculture in general.
