In what world do software companies let AI make decisions in a black box without spitting out logs or some code that maps to the action it made?
Every month or so we get a notification from their bug system that there's an "update on your ticket", which turns out to be an automated "there's no update, sorry" notification.
Perhaps you have missed all the posts here on HN where some company or other locks up someone's account without the user being told why and without the possibility of having a human review the ban?
Most are Google but they're not the only guilty party.
>Yes, individuals should not be subject to a decision that is based solely on automated processing (such as algorithms) and that is legally binding or which significantly affects them.
I suppose being banned from Uber can very well be something that significantly affects you, especially if you live in a city where it's the primary form of taxi-like transport.
But indeed, leaving GDPR enforcement to government authorities was a huge mistake. Anyone should be able to sue over GDPR violations impacting them.
The next big push will be audible AI.
But GDPR indeed requires it for many kinds of decisionmaking, no?
(Who will likely consult the computer and say no again, a month or two later.)
https://commission.europa.eu/law/law-topic/data-protection/r...
> In addition, processing can significantly affect an individual if it influences their personal circumstances, their behaviour or their choices (for example an automatic processing may lead to the refusal of an online credit application).
Right now, I don't know any AI system doing that.
> In practice, legality depends on someone willing to investigate the offence and enforce the law. When it comes to the GDPR, that's not happening even for the biggest, blatant offences (Google and Facebook are still around despite breaching the regulation for 4+ years), so do you really think someone is going to bother investigating this?