Some interesting points, and all relevant to algorithmic assessment – in this case for the elderly and impacting on the government support they receive.
Some relevant quotes:
The key ethical problems in algorithmic decision-making relate to opacity, discretion and accountability. In other words, problems relate to whether the people affected can see how the system works, whether the professionals using it can exercise judgement, and whether anyone can be held to answer for its decisions.
This appearance of objectivity also does political work some have called “agency laundering” – distancing oneself from morally consequential decisions by attributing them to an algorithm. Responsibility is diffused, and it becomes hard to say exactly who decided that a particular older person should receive less support this year than last.
These topics are relevant the the new rules added to the ASIO Act that permits the use of AI to make security assessments. The issues there are that the process is completely opaque, by definition the algorithms, assessments and even whether assessments have been done by AI are not disclosed. The ASIO Act changes give the AI assessments the authority of human agents, and can apply retrospectively. They could also be applied not just to individuals, but to whole regions, segments of the population, specified ethnicity or religions. And the results cannot be challenged in court or parliament. The Australian government with ASIO has also given Palantir the highest security clearance only a few months before these changes were passed into law in January. This is not hypothetical – it has already been rushed through parliament hidden in the anti-hate speech laws.
The NDIS changes are forecast to save $15 billion a year – which would almost certainly be funnelled towards US arms manufacturers and commissions for their death dealers.