How a Feel-Good AI Story Went Wrong in Flint

A machine-learning model showed promising results, but city officials and their engineering contractor abandoned it

Alexis C. Madrigal
The Atlantic

--

Workers in Flint, Michigan, replace a lead water-service pipe. Photo: Bill Pugliano/Getty Images

More than a thousand days after the water problems in Flint, Michigan, became national news, thousands of homes in the city still have lead pipes, from which the toxic metal can leach into the water supply. To remedy the problem, the lead pipes need to be replaced with safer, copper ones. That sounds straightforward, but it is a challenge to figure out which homes have lead pipes in the first place. The City’s records are incomplete and inaccurate. And digging up all the pipes would be costly and time-consuming.

That’s just the kind of problem that automation is supposed to help solve. So volunteer computer scientists, with some funding from Google, designed a machine-learning model to help predict which homes were likely to have lead pipes. The artificial intelligence was supposed to help the City dig only where pipes were likely to need replacement. Through 2017, the plan was working. Workers inspected 8,833 homes, and of those, 6,228 homes had their pipes replaced — a 70 percent rate of accuracy. Heading into 2018, the City signed a big, national engineering firm, AECOM, to a $5 million contract to “accelerate” the program, holding a buoyant…

--

--

Alexis C. Madrigal
The Atlantic

Host of KQED’s Forum. Contributing writer, @TheAtlantic. Author of forthcoming book on containers, computers, coal, and collateralized debt obligations.