3 ms·
The point of this is unambiguously to use technology as an accountability sink. You can't have a human eyeball age and call that a "process." You want a machine
by idle_zealot 5mo ago
The point of this is unambiguously to use technology as an accountability sink. You can't have a human eyeball age and call that a "process." You want a machine to point to instead. Its accuracy or lack thereof is immaterial to anyone who would seriously suggest using it.
As ever, this is the real risk of "AI"; not the technology itself so much as the technology-as-social-construct. A machine oracle we can abdicate decisions to with a facade of neutrality.
In this case, the facade is painting over the underlying motivation which is to reject asylum claims. You could imagine a world in which it is instead used to scan and fast-track claims through an automated and unaccountable process, but the form of the deployment has baked-in the outcome and interests of the powerful. Don't be surprised if there's another automated AI system that totally-pinky-promise-for-sure validates that rich tourists aren't terrorists so they can walk through security unmolested and another system that uses AI to flag "suspicious behavior" for the proles. The outcome is baked in, the AI just provides plausibility and legitimacy.
- delichon 5mo ago> The point of this is unambiguously to use technology as an accountability sink. Seems like another measuring device, like a breathalyzer or radar gun, and should be held in court to the same (hopefully high) standards.
- bb123 5mo ago>the facade is painting over the underlying motivation which is to reject asylum claims. That feels like an unfair read. Asylum seekers claiming to be younger than they are is a known reality, and it makes total sense that a system would need to guard against that. Are you suggesting we just take every person who shows up at the border at their word?
- idle_zealot 5mo ago> Are you suggesting we just take every person who shows up at the border at their word? That's not what I said. It's all about the framing. Rejecting is automated, accepting is slow and deliberate. This is reflective of a preference for rejection but presented as neutral and pragmatic. If you cared about false negatives as much as false positives you wouldn't fast-track or preference either branch. The observation that this is the case is value-neutral. As for my personal opinion, I consider freedom of movement a human right and accepting asylum seekers a moral obligation. Both can be implemented poorly, but it's our duty to try to do them right and allocate these systems the resources they need to succeed and to hold incompetent or malicious leaders responsible for failing to operate them effectively.
- HexPhantom 5mo agoI think "accountability sink" is the right phrase here