I read the intro and skimmed the paper. The title is a bit misleading. The authors are not "against" using ML to make predictions about human beings for automa

I read the intro and skimmed the paper. The title is a bit misleading. The authors are not "against" using ML to make predictions about human beings for automated decision-making (e.g., whether to approve a loan, offer college acceptance, offer a job, reduce a jail sentence, etc.). What the authors are against is using ML for such purposes without explicitly addressing multiple common-sense issues that unfairly impact groups of human beings. Specifically, the authors recommend that those organizations which use ML for automated decision-making to specify how they are dealing with these issues, instead of sweeping them under the rug. This strikes me as a sensible recommendation.