so arguably, in this case the machine learning algorithm was possibly right, and the human was wrong. on the face of it, not using machine learning here would not have changed the outcome.
what i am wondering is though if this can't be used to everyones benefit.
apart from neding a human to verify a decision, how about, if the human and machine learning decision disagree, then the consumer gets the right to appeal for a second human review?
Funny thing is that I specifically opted out of automated decision making, having been declined before. It wasn't a big deal, really. EU lenders are far warier of contract jobs than American ones.
oh there was an opt-out. that's interesting. how does that work? you obviously opted out before, but could you also opt out after they tell you what the automated decision would be? if so that would effectively be that kind of appeal that i suggested.
I applied for a loan a year ago, didn't opt out got denied, and wondered why. Then I applied again ~4 months ago, opted out of automated decision making, and the subject access request showed the conversation.
what i am wondering is though if this can't be used to everyones benefit.
apart from neding a human to verify a decision, how about, if the human and machine learning decision disagree, then the consumer gets the right to appeal for a second human review?