[namaria]

How so? People take it at face value and harm other people based on its outputs, as per the article linked.

> If a human of animal behaving the same were to be describe as intelligent, than so are those systems.

I cannot parse this sentence. Behaving the same as what? What bearing do claims of human or animal intelligence have on me stating that generating liability by trusting probabilistic analysis, and actively harming people, by calling software "intelligent", is not responsible behavior?

[tomNth]

The bearing is on the claim that calling software "intelligent" have anything to do with trusting or liability. Dumb or not, no one is supposed to blindly trust it.

[exe34]

we can call it frediness, but the problem isn't what it's called, the problem is that the profit motive only works when there's competition. if there were several shops nearby and one of them started rejecting 80% of customers based on frediness, they'd go out of business and the others who prefer having a human guard would prosper. if it's the only shop within a 10 mile radius, and it only flags out 1% of innocent people as shoplifters, then the profit motive doesn't provide the balancing force. that's what regulation is for.