Paradoxes in Fair Computer-Aided Decision Making
  Computer-aided decision making--where a human decision-maker is aided by a
computational classifier in making a decision--is becoming increasingly
prevalent. For instance, judges in at least nine states make use of algorithmic
tools meant to determine "recidivism risk scores" for criminal defendants in
sentencing, parole, or bail decisions. A subject of much recent debate is
whether such algorithmic tools are "fair" in the sense that they do not
discriminate against certain groups (e.g., races) of people.
  Our main result shows that for "non-trivial" computer-aided decision making,
either the classifier must be discriminatory, or a rational decision-maker
using the output of the classifier is forced to be discriminatory. We further
provide a complete characterization of situations where fair computer-aided
decision making is possible.
