The "Sexist" Credit Card

In her book, Artificial Unintelligence, Meredith Broussard discusses the concept of technochauvinism. Simply put, it's the belief that technology is like a genie that can procure anything and everything; its supporters can often be found arguing for the benefits of “unbiased” technology while ignoring flaws like social media harassment. Yet, incorrect technology often lands us in hot soup. One such case: Apple’s “sexist” credit card. 

Launched in collaboration with Goldman Sachs this August, the card quickly made waves for its integration with Apple Pay and compatibility across devices. On Nov 7, however, tech guru David Heinemeier Hansson tweeted a curious incident: he received a credit limit 20 times that of his wife, Jamie, despite them sharing all assets, tax returns and her having a higher credit score. In an ironic (and perhaps amusing) twist, Apple co-founder Steve Wozniak reported the same issue days later. In the ensuing furor, both Apple and Goldman Sachs removed all culpability by referring to their lack of control over the algorithm, and magically raising Jamie’s credit limit - no questions asked. While New York regulators are currently assessing the case, it begs the question: what are the costs of this technology’s imperfections? And does our blind faith in tech make us the technochauvinists? 

The most apparent cost is just as Broussard predicts:

“[When] we try to solve big social problems using technology alone, we tend to make a set of the same predictable mistakes that impede progress and reinforce inequality.”

In the short run, lowering women’s credit limits would typically compel them to increase their utilization rate (or the fraction of their overall limit that they’re using). Higher utilization can then lead to a host of negative consequences including a lower credit score (because you’re essentially living less within your means), potentially maxing out credit cards, default and even debt. The alternative to this downward spiral would then be for women to spend less than their male counterparts (earning the same) to reduce their chances of going into debt. But why? For all the jokes and memes built off women’s shopaholic tendencies, this algorithm seems to build the inequality into their very system. 

The good news is that if the algorithm isn’t fixed soon enough, it's unlikely that it would stick around 10 years from today. From this perspective, the algorithm wouldn’t bode well for Goldman Sachs and Apple either: half the population would simply opt to not use the Apple card. Simplistically, declining popularity and social implications would run an innovative and efficient technology out of use. And this is assuming the system isn’t just discontinued after the New York regulator investigation. But in the meanwhile, it is still imperative to correct the inequality for existing users of the card.

Lack of transparency seems to be the key issue in this case. Obviously, neither Goldman nor Apple will confess to having set up an algorithm which clearly disadvantages women, but someone somewhere must have written a code that allows this to happen. If both struggle to remove themselves from the situation, it simply increases the chances of New York regulators deciding the final fate of the Apple Card. 

While there isn’t any news thus far regarding the outcome, it is also possible that the final solution will focus on correction (e.g. through compensation/fines/bans) over improving the technology itself (i.e. correcting the bias with same tech). This sort of an all encompassing but flat solution would just dampen innovation in the tech sphere. Instead, the ideal outcome would be a dual correction of the bias in the algorithm itself, along with compensation for existing users suffering from the bias. In broader terms- use technology, but carefully. We aren’t techno chauvinists yet- as long as we are aware of technology’s flaws and adapt them accordingly.