https://arab.news/rkqnr
There is no doubt that if you give an artificial intelligence tool a job, it will execute it with outstanding speed and efficiency, often far quicker and better than a human can, and exactly as requested. Now that we are increasingly trying to make AI in government work, such tools can make good processes much better — but can they also make a bad process far worse?
Let me be more specific. There is a paradox I have encountered many times with people aiming for a sensitive US government leadership position. They work hard to build credentials, get an education, travel widely, learn languages and cultivate global networks and perspectives with the aim of preparing themselves for a position in diplomacy, defense or policy. But when the time comes to apply for that government job, they are hit with security clearance and every asset they worked on for their application suddenly becomes a liability and a risk. Qualifications become hindrances. It is as if the system is designed so that the least-qualified can sometimes reach the highest positions.
There is a real parallel between the credit scores that banks use when giving out loans and security clearance evaluations: both aim to evaluate risk and both use certain measures as indicators of risk, often indirectly. The credit score tries to predict the risk or probability that you will default on a loan. Similarly, security clearance predicts the risk that you will betray your country, such as by leaking, selling or mishandling secrets. The algorithm uses indicators like payment history and debt-to-income ratio for the credit score and things like criminal convictions, foreign ties and drug use for security clearance.
