Carissa Véliz

There's no database about the future.

We only have data about the past.

but the future doesn't always resemble the past.

So we have to be much more enlightened about making predictions.

It's fine to predict, but we have to be mindful of what can be predicted, what can't, and what are the limits of prediction.

Not necessarily, because experts are experts about the past and the present.

There is no expert on the future.

And yes, we can make predictions and some predictions are better educated guesses than others.

But we have to use reasoning always to make sure that we are making predictions

good causal inferences.

And so one of the things that I think we should avoid is trying to ask experts about the future.

So, for example, I have become specialised in privacy and I can tell you a lot about how data is being collected.

But don't ask me about the future of privacy, because the future of privacy is partly in your hands, not in mine.

It worries me that even though I'm advising governments around the world, nobody's talking about the ethics of prediction.

And in fact, that is the primal problem, the primal ethical issue that we have, because it goes against due process.

If I reject a loan application on the basis of a criterion, you can challenge me.

If you don't have X amounts of pounds or euros in the bank, then you know what to do to change the decision.

And if I'm wrong, you can challenge me.

But if I deny your loan application or your job application or any other opportunity on the basis of a prediction, there's no way to challenge that.

So what I'm worried about is that we're creating this Kafkaesque system in which we can no longer contest decisions.