I&#x27;ve often heard fans of AI[1] claim that a benefit of machine-based evaluations is the removal of human bias. The machine applies the rules consistently, while humans allow race, sex, religion, politics, eye-color[2], <i>etc</i> to bias their decisions, often without knowing the bias even exists.<p>This sounds great at first, but it&#x27;s really just moving the problem around. Instead of many individuals making their own biased decisions, we get a uniform application of the biases of whoever designed the AI. They still may not realize how their biases influence the design process, so it&#x27;s easy to think that the AI is somehow &quot;neutral&quot;.<p>This is particularly bad because it removes locality from the decision process. While the fallible humans sometime inject their own racism&#x2F;sexism&#x2F;etc, the freedom to make those mistakes also gave them the power to fix problems that were never included in the &quot;official policy&quot;.<p>Decision by remote algorithm is really just another type of central planning, and I expect it to have the same inability to respond to local conditions that cause a lot of the problems in the traditional communist states.<p>[1] usually combined with a new type of data collection (surveillance-as-a-business-model)<p>[2] biases that are often taught socially: <a href="http:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.pbs.org&#x2F;wgbh&#x2F;frontline&#x2F;film&#x2F;class-divided&#x2F;" rel="nofollow">http:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.pbs.org&#x2F;wgbh&#x2F;frontline&#x2F;film&#x2F;class-divided&#x2F;</a>