> There wouldn't be so much money in gaming those things if the AI wasn't doing such a poor job. This isn't true at all. When the process works well, those wh

> There wouldn't be so much money in gaming those things if the AI wasn't doing such a poor job. This isn't true at all. When the process works well, those who it excludes often attempt to spend money to subvert it. There's no reason that interfering with the process should only happen when it's working poorly. A simple example is the recent college admissions scandal. You often hear this scandal demonstrates that college admissions are just a way to let in rich people, but actually it demonstrates the opposite -- that the normal admissions process had (presumably correctly?) kept these people out and so they had to pay to subvert it. Of course, you're not claiming that these things are just ways of separating the rich from the rest; just that they're messed up in some way or another. Which, if not very specific, seems broadly accurate. But the following claim isn't -- people on the losing end of a judgment are going to do their best to subvert that judgment whether it's correct or not, so one cannot infer much of anything about the judgment's correctness based on whether there's then an attempt at subverting it.