Yeah I wanted to expand but got tired:
Of course any computation can be considered a decision in some way. But this is conflating a narrow and IT-specific meaning of that word with legalese and philosophy, or my intended meaning of the word.
This reminds me of the ancient catastrophic Therac-25 software bug, and other such cases.
Maybe this case is a good example for thinking about what part of the responsibility is on the side of the operator, apart from the obvious failure of the implementer.
For more modern examples involving actual ML, look at Meta, TikTok and their recommendations: where is the line to draw, what excuses are allowed, when the outcome is obviously negative, and the algorithm claims to fulfill a goal?
It doesn't matter if it's a rule-based system without "intelligence" or ML.
What matters is the responsibility of the human operator.
And making assumptions about correctness.
Humans make egregious errors as well, but the kind of errors AI causes are a significant concern where current legislation is insufficient.
It's one thing to have a bug in your airplane controller code or whatever.
It's another to knowingly accept malicious errors, either unpredictable or even intentional, but without proper responsibility?