> In the year ending March 2026, more than 6,400 migrants claiming to be children were age assessed at the border, with 43% found to be adults, according to Home Office data.
Whatever method the border force used to determine this, I cannot imagine how AI is going to be more accurate.
The process, per the article, is that a border agent makes a determination, and if it is not what the applicant claims, then a social worker takes over to make a final determination.
That is a massive time sink for social workers, and the appeal of having an automated system is pretty obvious. Considering that it is already all largely guesswork, I'm not really sure that "more accurate" is even an acceptance criteria for them right now- they'd probably be very happy with "mostly the same accuracy".
Of course, the social workers are opposing being taken out of the loop, but I can't imagine that there isn't already plenty of work for them elsewhere in the UK.
Purely curious if there's better ways, like I know X Rays can get us pretty close for children and adolescents, but that might not be the best way to do it, I wonder if there's other alternatives that are low cost.
"a computer can never be held accountable, therefore a computer must never make a [legal] decision"
in my observation: when humans are automated out of a process due to the human element being inconvenient, the perceived efficiency gains are often because wronged individuals have less recourse in the automated system.
The point of this is unambiguously to use technology as an accountability sink. You can't have a human eyeball age and call that a "process." You want a machine to point to instead. Its accuracy or lack thereof is immaterial to anyone who would seriously suggest using it.
As ever, this is the real risk of "AI"; not the technology itself so much as the technology-as-social-construct. A machine oracle we can abdicate decisions to with a facade of neutrality.
In this case, the facade is painting over the underlying motivation which is to reject asylum claims. You could imagine a world in which it is instead used to scan and fast-track claims through an automated and unaccountable process, but the form of the deployment has baked-in the outcome and interests of the powerful. Don't be surprised if there's another automated AI system that totally-pinky-promise-for-sure validates that rich tourists aren't terrorists so they can walk through security unmolested and another system that uses AI to flag "suspicious behavior" for the proles. The outcome is baked in, the AI just provides plausibility and legitimacy.
> In the year ending March 2026, more than 6,400 migrants claiming to be children were age assessed at the border, with 43% found to be adults, according to Home Office data.
Whatever method the border force used to determine this, I cannot imagine how AI is going to be more accurate.
The process, per the article, is that a border agent makes a determination, and if it is not what the applicant claims, then a social worker takes over to make a final determination.
That is a massive time sink for social workers, and the appeal of having an automated system is pretty obvious. Considering that it is already all largely guesswork, I'm not really sure that "more accurate" is even an acceptance criteria for them right now- they'd probably be very happy with "mostly the same accuracy".
Of course, the social workers are opposing being taken out of the loop, but I can't imagine that there isn't already plenty of work for them elsewhere in the UK.
Purely curious if there's better ways, like I know X Rays can get us pretty close for children and adolescents, but that might not be the best way to do it, I wonder if there's other alternatives that are low cost.
"a computer can never be held accountable, therefore a computer must never make a [legal] decision"
in my observation: when humans are automated out of a process due to the human element being inconvenient, the perceived efficiency gains are often because wronged individuals have less recourse in the automated system.
The point of this is unambiguously to use technology as an accountability sink. You can't have a human eyeball age and call that a "process." You want a machine to point to instead. Its accuracy or lack thereof is immaterial to anyone who would seriously suggest using it.
As ever, this is the real risk of "AI"; not the technology itself so much as the technology-as-social-construct. A machine oracle we can abdicate decisions to with a facade of neutrality.
In this case, the facade is painting over the underlying motivation which is to reject asylum claims. You could imagine a world in which it is instead used to scan and fast-track claims through an automated and unaccountable process, but the form of the deployment has baked-in the outcome and interests of the powerful. Don't be surprised if there's another automated AI system that totally-pinky-promise-for-sure validates that rich tourists aren't terrorists so they can walk through security unmolested and another system that uses AI to flag "suspicious behavior" for the proles. The outcome is baked in, the AI just provides plausibility and legitimacy.
> The point of this is unambiguously to use technology as an accountability sink.
Seems like another measuring device, like a breathalyzer or radar gun, and should be held in court to the same (hopefully high) standards.