Yuppp!! One of the most important shifts in the AI conversation is moving from “Can it do this?” to “Can it justify doing this?” Efficiency without transparency, accountability, and due process is not innovation, it’s a governance risk waiting to surface.
What makes this compelling is that it keeps asking a harder question than “does AI work?” it asks whether these systems can justify the power they’re given. The strongest point is that once AI enters public systems like tax administration, opacity stops being a technical issue and becomes a fairness issue. Efficiency alone is not enough if people cannot understand, challenge, or defend themselves against the system’s decisions.
That is precisely the point. Once AI is used in public administration, opacity becomes a fairness issue, not just an engineering one. A system can be fast and efficient, but if it cannot be understood or challenged, it fails the basic standards of accountability and due process. Thanks Frank for engaging always!
"Not whether it works, but whether it can be defended" is exactly the right test. The problem is defensibility requires a record, and most systems were never built to create one. By the time the regulator asks, the origin-level trail is already gone.
Exactly! and that is the point. A system that cannot preserve its own provenance is not really defensible; it is only operational until someone asks questions. By then, if the trail is gone, accountability has already failed. Thanks for sharing your writing! I will enjoy reading it
Yuppp!! One of the most important shifts in the AI conversation is moving from “Can it do this?” to “Can it justify doing this?” Efficiency without transparency, accountability, and due process is not innovation, it’s a governance risk waiting to surface.
Thanks Shweta! I have lost this comment! And yes! We are so focused in trying to do that we sometimes missed if it is right to do!
What makes this compelling is that it keeps asking a harder question than “does AI work?” it asks whether these systems can justify the power they’re given. The strongest point is that once AI enters public systems like tax administration, opacity stops being a technical issue and becomes a fairness issue. Efficiency alone is not enough if people cannot understand, challenge, or defend themselves against the system’s decisions.
That is precisely the point. Once AI is used in public administration, opacity becomes a fairness issue, not just an engineering one. A system can be fast and efficient, but if it cannot be understood or challenged, it fails the basic standards of accountability and due process. Thanks Frank for engaging always!
"Not whether it works, but whether it can be defended" is exactly the right test. The problem is defensibility requires a record, and most systems were never built to create one. By the time the regulator asks, the origin-level trail is already gone.
Wrote about this: AI Is Not a Flowchart. It Is a Big Bang. — michaelklingebiel.substack.com
Exactly! and that is the point. A system that cannot preserve its own provenance is not really defensible; it is only operational until someone asks questions. By then, if the trail is gone, accountability has already failed. Thanks for sharing your writing! I will enjoy reading it