> So if an automated decision happens, and the reviewer looks for a second at it, and says, good enough, that will be OK according to GDPR. Don't see what GDPR

> So if an automated decision happens, and the reviewer looks for a second at it, and says, good enough, that will be OK according to GDPR. Don't see what GDPR solves here. The assumption is that a human review the conditions that led the automated system to make that decision. I think it would be trivial to argue in court that rubberstamping some scalar value that a deep neural net or whatever spit out does not pass that bar. It's still the automated system's decision, the human is just parroting it. Note that it's easier for the FAANGs to argue such a review has happened because they have massive amounts of heterogenous data where there's bound to be something that would be sufficient to argue with (like having posted something that offended someone). But a single score? I'd say almost impossible to argue. One would have to demonstrate that the system is near-perfect, and virtually never makes mistakes.