Skimming through the article something jumped at me and that's where indeed the actual danger is: ai-based "recommendations" for someone who is or not high-risk

Skimming through the article something jumped at me and that's where indeed the actual danger is: ai-based "recommendations" for someone who is or not high-risk.In this case from what i see the decision was still made by a human, but the fact is that most of the judging came from an algorithm.I don't think humans will be replaced as ultimate deciders(let's hope for this, though i'm pretty optimistic), but we need to be careful about who, or better said what we introduce in the pipeline.Because a decider will use the algorithm as a scapegoat for making a decision, just like we already use any other person/object/variable as a scapegoat for our decisions. Algorithms and such systems are a double-edged sword.They're good for analyzing potential threats for a defensive approach(thus why they maybe incriminate too much)but they're not, and >will not< be able to do the proper judgement for a person.Because they inherently cannot comprehend, simulate, or understand the human potential, spirit, that ultimately someone can fundamentally change(whether they choose to do so is another question).This is ultimately a very philosophical concept of what and what cannot science explain, and for the most part it cannot explain how a person who is at it's deepest point can become a very good person given the promise (mostly self-made) of redemption.