[allovernow]

I don't think so. There are valid use cases for sentiment analysis, but you need to understand the limitations of your training data and probably still want humans to QC at least some representative proportion of flagged posts, if you're going to do this legitimately. Of course a company like this just wants to sell any garbage they can dig up.

[BlueTemplar]

Well, I will admit that I am quite ignorant of what exactly a background check is, but I just don't see how such a morally fraught question can be legally allowed to be decided by anyone else than a psychologist.

In fact, considering the moral hazard, I don't even see how even using an AI, even as simple as "grep", helping that psychologist in the cost-minimization contexts of a private company would not result in an unacceptable slippery slope where the psychologist would end up just rubber-stamping the decisions of the AI and its creator ? Maybe someone with a dual data "science" / psychology degree would be acceptable, but I'm guessing he/she wouldn't be able to use any "black box" AI...

[isoskeles]

That’s not what moral hazard means.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_hazard

[BlueTemplar]

Right, it's probably inappropriate to use this term at this specific place in my argument.

However, in what is probably not just a coincidence, the global issue this is only one facet of is about the information asymmetry between citizens and corporations...