[ttgurney]

I find this kind of language positively disgusting:

> Your file will be reviewed

> A decision will be made

> If the file is found to be...

> ... restrictions will be removed ...

It is the archetypical "mistakes were made".

Note the constant use of passive voice, intended to hide the actor, and to keep you from even thinking about who is doing these things and thus who is responsible.

By the way, no better is the most likely alternative "Google will review...". I'll leave deducing the reasons why as an exercise for the reader.

[coliveira]

Google has created the idea that "an algorithm is responsible" for something. This is never the case. An algorithm is programed by human beings, therefore the humans who created and approved the algorithm are responsible for its decisions. It is just a form of hiding their intent under the disguise of an algorithmic intelligence. I'm pretty sure that if something is bad for Google, it will not be approved despite what "the algorithm" thinks.

[deltree7]

This is spoken by someone who is really clueless about AI and Machine Learning

[Schroedingersat]

Or someone who understands that it's not magic, and there's still humans choosing the dataset, labelling the data and picking the loss function. This is exactly the kind of gaslighting GP was talking about.

Just because there are more edge cases where the human has no idea what their algorithm does, doesn't absolve them of responsibility. You don't get to go free after running a bunch of pedestrians over by claiming you were too drunk to know where the road was or which direction your car would turn when you moved the wheel. If I put a running metal lathe in a kindergarten, I don't get to throw my hands up and say 'you clearly don't understand machining' when some children get dismembered.