Algorithmic Monoculture and its Critics

TL;DR

This paper critically evaluates the risks of algorithmic monoculture in decision-making, finding that many common objections are less problematic than critics suggest, though some concerns remain.

Contribution

It provides a systematic, formal assessment of objections to algorithmic monoculture, challenging prevailing critiques and clarifying its actual risks.

Findings

Many objections to monoculture are unfounded or overstated.

Monoculture is less problematic than critics claim.

Some concerns about monoculture still have validity.

Abstract

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 systemic 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.