I don't recall the full stack of EU rwgulations in detail, but a requirement that appeal to an actual human is possible after automated decisions is in there somewhere AFAIK.

▲

david_allison 3 days ago | parent | next [-]

> The data subject shall have the right not to be subject to a decision based solely on automated processing, including profiling, which produces legal effects concerning him or her or similarly significantly affects him or her.

https://gdpr-info.eu/art-22-gdpr/

▲

sidewndr46 3 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

But what would it matter? Wouldn't the human be an employee of the company that already made the automated decision?

▲

gmueckl 3 days ago | parent [-]

A human can understand and process arguments outside the bounded input domain of automated clssification systems.

▲

sidewndr46 3 days ago | parent [-]

They can, but what incentive would they have to do so? They are probably measured off the number of cases they close. The fastest way to close them would be to agree with the conclusions of the algorithm

▲

gmueckl 2 days ago | parent [-]

My take on this is that telling a human reviewer to stick to a decision made by an automated process is actually against the law: some independence of the reviewer is implicitly required by the spirit of the regulation.

Naturally IANAL and such a claim would have to be tested in court if it was an actually viable argument in the first place.

	▲	sidewndr46 2 days ago \| parent [-]
		Almost certainly it is. Especially if done in writing. But it's pretty easy to do in practice. First you do it verbally, by suggesting the system rarely makes mistakes. It's the role of the employee to double check the system's work, not to second guess it obviously. Secondly just layoff or transfer anyone that doesn't side with the algorithm most of the time.

▲

nalak 3 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

If I were Google I would make it a point to have the human always confirm what the AI said.

▲

sidewndr46 3 days ago | parent | next [-]

That'd likely be a violation of some kind of laws, but you could probably work to have HR ensure that various teams were aligned in the goals of the operational attributes the company finds necessary to produce an an environment which maximizes the opportunities for individuals to contribute without fear of repression.

▲

badsectoracula 3 days ago | parent | prev [-]

Why?

	▲	naIak 3 days ago \| parent [-]
		Because humans cost a lot of money and I don’t want to train my users to think they can get a more favourable answer by asking to have a human review the decision.

▲

chao- 3 days ago | parent | prev [-]

That's a good requirement to place on these services. Thanks for educating me.