A starting point for discussion
The idea
The author argues that resistance is not automatically the morally better choice, because algorithmic systems may have practical benefits and the way they make decisions may itself provide a reason to use them.
Place in the reasoning
AI assessment · Connected to reasoning
Danaher argues that resistance is not automatically preferable because algorithmic systems may offer practical and procedural benefits; this frames resistance as a trade-off, not a settled remedy.
Adapting to computer systems or resisting them can both carry risks
Qualifies opposition to algorithmic systems by noting possible benefits that must be weighed against participation and understanding risks.
What this means and why it matters
What this means
The author does not treat resistance as the obvious moral answer. Better results or benefits from the way decisions are made may count in favour of using systems, while their risks count against them.
Why it matters
The choice may call for weighing reasons to resist against reasons to use some systems.
Conditions & assumptions
Source coverage: Full readable text of the author manuscript from an accessible mirror; not the publisher typeset version. The passage says there are moral arguments for using such systems based on their outcomes and on the way decisions are made. It therefore frames resistance as involving competing values. Addresses: The moral case for and against resistance
Questions this connects to
AI-suggested relationships. Authors have not necessarily responded to one another.
How strong is this claim?
AI assessment · not a probability or a final resolution
The passage argues against treating resistance as automatically preferable, while leaving the tradeoff unresolved.