> "So I think we need something like the FDA for algorithms."<p>I can't say for sure that the author or interviewee even knows what the definition of an algorithm is.<p>No, the government absolutely should <i>not</i> be involved in regulating algorithms. You'll be able to enjoy a burdensome system for anyone that isn't a massive corporation. Good luck competing against Google when every 10 lines of code you write, you need to seek government approval.<p>I know you're not supposed to be dismissive on Hacker News, but it's so difficult to take this seriously when you display this level of technical ignorance.
From TFA:<p>"Hannah Fry points out something interesting about the phrase “Hello World.” It’s never been quite clear, she says, whether the phrase—which is frequently the entire output of a student’s first computer program—is supposed to be attributed to the program, awakening for the first time, or to the programmer, announcing their triumphant first creation."<p>Did she try asking programmers instead of guessing?
So I need to file for premarket approval every time I want to use a b-tree?<p>Jest aside, I think there is a real lack of clarity in what Fry is asking for here. You don't need a computer to bumble your way into reinventing redlining, yet at the same time a single algorithmic tool can be benign or morally terrifying based on application.<p>What are the boundaries Fry seeks and what moral principles do we base them on? What mechanism(s) does she envision as proper to enforce them? That bit about pre-market approval isn't entirely a joke - the analogy to FDA specifically rather than another regulator implies either pre-market approval processes or a bad author. How do we categorize which pieces of software to subject to what levels of scrutiny?<p>I don't mean to poo-poo the idea of getting limits around software that is making more and more impactful decisions. Hopefully the reason this article is so light on detail is because the reporter doesn't understand the subject matter. But Fry's response to the data ownership question is the sign of someone that always punts to "experts" when pressed on the finer details.
Interestingly, there is the NIST dictionary of algorithms and data structures, which has been around since 1998, and was updated as recently as last week.<p><a href="https://xlinux.nist.gov/dads/" rel="nofollow">https://xlinux.nist.gov/dads/</a>
They're not talking about algorithms, from between reading the lines, but scummy businesses which sell fake software products.<p>Question is: why then are they calling them algorithms.