On: Governments shouldn’t rely on AI to decide who gets a social grant: inside a...

The notion that a machine might sit in judgment over a man’s need for sustenance, determining his very claim to a portion of the common stock, is a chilling one. They speak of “efficiency” and “impartiality,” these advocates of the automated grant system. But where is the impartial spectator in a circuit board? Where is the sympathy that allows one to truly apprehend the distress of another, to weigh the subtle nuances of a family’s struggle against a rigid set of pre-programmed rules?

The court, it seems, has seen through the thin veil of technological progress to the stark reality beneath. To delegate such a profound moral decision to an algorithm is to abdicate a fundamental human responsibility. The merchant, in his ledger, accounts for profit and loss; the machine, in its code, accounts for inputs and outputs. Neither is equipped to gauge the true weight of human suffering, nor to discern the honest plea from the artful deception. The public interest is not merely the sum of efficiently processed applications; it is the flourishing of human dignity, however humble the circumstances. And that, I fear, requires a gaze far more discerning than any silicon eye can offer.