From A-levels to pensions, algorithms make easy targets – but they aren’t to blame | Jonathan Everett

Poor policy outcomes are not the responsibility of mutant maths', but of choices made by people in power

A year ago, when the prime minister blamed a mutant algorithm" for A-level students receiving lower than their predicted grades, a new phrase entered political discourse. Since then, the government's proposed housing algorithm has been labelled mutant" by the Conservative MP Philip Hollobone; recently even the pensions triple lock was referred to as a mutant formula" by the GB News journalist Tom Harwood.

It's worth thinking about why this wording has spread. The implication of calling an algorithm mutant" is that technology has got out of hand and that a useful mathematical system has produced perverse outcomes when applied in the real world. But this obscures the reality, which is that people in power choose when to use algorithms, set their parameters, and oversee their commissioning process. Those developing algorithms repeatedly check they are doing what ministers want them to do. When algorithms are spoken of as mutant" it obscures this reality, framing algorithms as outside forces that act upon us, rather than tools that can help us understand the world and make decisions.