#AI#PredictiveAlgorithms#PredictiveOptimization#AIEthics: "In predictive optimisation systems, machine learning is used to predict future outcomes of interest about individuals, and these predictions are used to make decisions about them. Despite being based on pseudoscience (on the belief that the future of the individual is already written and, therefore, readable), not working and unfixably harmful, predictive optimisation systems are still used by private companies and by governments. As they are based on the assimilation of people to things, predictive optimisation systems have inherent political properties that cannot be altered by any technical design choice: the initial choice about whether or not to adopt them is therefore decisive, as Langdon Winner wrote about inherently political technologies.
The adoption of predictive optimisation systems is incompatible with liberalism and the rule of law because it results in people not being recognised as self-determining subjects, not being equal before the law, not being able to predict which law will be applied to them, all being under surveillance as 'suspects' and being able or unable to exercise their rights in ways that depend not on their status as citizens, but on their contingent economic, social, emotional, health or religious status. Under the rule of law, these systems should simply be banned.
Requiring only a risk impact assessment – as in the European Artificial Intelligence Act – is like being satisfied with asking whether a despot is benevolent or malevolent: freedom, understood as the absence of domination, is lost whatever the answer. Under the AI ACT's harm approach to fundamental rights impact assessments (perhaps a result of the "lobbying ghost in the machine of regulation"), fundamental rights can be violated with impunity as long as there is no foreseeable harm."