There already exist flexible materials which can be made to change shape under an applied current, it should be possible to make them small enough to display haptically at the tip of a gloves finger a fingerprint taken by a fingerprint sensor on the inside of the glove.This would solve the problem of the stolen glove as well as the mistaken belief in biometric access control.

You are perfectly right, with people there is no moral decision involved, they just act, most often inadequately in retrospect, and we are fine with that, as strange as it might seem, with rare cases being "tragic", inescapable, impossible to prevent. This is the problem with algorithms, the accident does not simply happen, it is happening the way it is happening in some explainable way, so people want to know the reasons why it is happening like this and not like something completely different. So it does ot suffice to be better than a human statistically. Don't get me wrong, I firmly believe we can find acceptable moral algorithms and we should pursue creating them.

This set of rules is one ruleset implementing moral judgement. What needs to be done is finding rulesets people could agree upon, which implement acceptable moral decisions and are complete enough to cover even rare situations in a way people are comfotable with.

You are quite right to require non-discrimination, thanks for providing this insight, as I would generally accept any method that assesses risks reliably, like having no credit record. Everyone will agree probably, that we are talking about illegal discrimination based on inacceptable grounds, like gender, heritage or sexual preferences. Discrimination based on former ability to pay back loans should be acceptable, also discrimination based on income or presumed job stability, there will be a lot of factors we might accept. If there were factors which looked OK at first, but would in fact be discriminating in favour of straight middle aged white males, we should object to these factors being used, both morally as well as legally. Even with these proxy discriminations ruled out, there will be differences in your groups total loan acceptance rate, but you, as an individual, should get the same evaluation as anyone from any different group in a similar situation. There is a catch though. What if I told you that formerly, in the good old times, when actual people decided on your loan, these people might have been far more racist, mysogynist, homophobe and otherwise preferential than any current algorithm? I deem it rather probable, that any big company trying to earn money by lending money to you is rather more interested in this said money than pushing some ideology into the world. On the other hand there is one additional problem, are we able to evaluate the algorithms? Are we able to spot wilfull incorporation of proxy discrimination? Neural nets might be able to produce good evaluation results, usually they are built with no explanatory component. Expert systems are able to explain, but are we able to understand the explanation. Apparently we need better software, designed to be able to prove it is non-discriminatory. Furthermore, we probably should require this software to be transparent, enabling us, as society, if we think the grounds are acceptable. Thus we could lead discussions like this, is it acceptable policy to deny heavy drinkers a loan.

Please have a look at your comment. It appears to be just the communication style which is discussed here, it appears to intend to intimidate people to stop what they are doing. This is not meant funny, I just think we all have adopted this kind of talking way more than we even know.

Do they even know, what they are asking for? If they are absolutely insisting on enforcing the ludicrous "right to be forgotten" a Great Firewall of Europe it needs to be then, as only that will enable the invention of history, which at its core it is.

Fine with me, as long as every contender mentioned in schools also needs to be at least a theory, which would rule out any believe based systems, as these lack two basic prerequisites of scientific theory, verifyability and falsifyability.

Could it be that this is indicating society has to evolve, allowing more freedom of personal expression rather than trying to keep the old ways?