How is that any different from other machines used in court? From transcripts/recordings, to forensic tests like DNA machines and algorithms. But in the worst

How is that any different from other machines used in court? From transcripts/recordings, to forensic tests like DNA machines and algorithms. But in the worst case, you can print the algorithm out on paper. They are generally simple linear models or decision trees. You could easily verify the output by hand, albeit a bit tediously. In the case of more complicated models like random forests or ensembles, you can generate lots of artificial data, and then train a simpler model to approximate its output as best as possible. Then you can print out that model. In the old days, they printed out actuarial tables. Big tables that you would look up your case, and find the recommended output. >Try and anonymise that, and you end up in a situation where those who can act regretful over the phone/without being soon have an advantage over those that can't. That's exactly the problem. People vastly overestimate how well they can read facial expressions. I recall studies that officers couldn't tell liars from nonliars better than chance, but they believed they could.