[elizabethanera]

I was going to write something about how ominous it is to defer to the judgment of a machine for a person's sanity, but the machine of psychiatry to which we defer is no more or less subject to the weaknesses of that kind of deference.

[T0T0R0]

You've identified that a group of humans will make mistakes, possibly as much as machines, and that's not incorrect.

The real hazard, on the other hand, is the unrestrained laziness humans might adopt, once the norm of machine assessment matures. Always trusting the machine answer. Never (or rarely ever) contemplating the judged person. Optical sorting. Rubber stamps.

No longer simple stigma. But endemic callousness, as people stop trying to help anyone, because machines now adjudicate who to simply avoid, until those untouchables rectify their unit tests.

The isolation induced by a machine-endorsed judgement could be far more rigid, than times when people would have had to get to know you, feel you out. And this process could have been theraputic for at least one side of the conversation. Maybe that goes away now.