A starting point for discussion
The idea
Because the trade-off is complex, the author questions whether rejecting automated decision systems is the right response. He suggests keeping possible benefits while finding other ways for people to participate.
Place in the reasoning
AI assessment · Connected to reasoning
Danaher proposes retaining possible benefits while finding other ways for people to participate, but leaves this as an unsettled possibility.
Adapting to computer systems or resisting them can both carry risks
This favors considering accommodation rather than simple rejection, without claiming that preserving participation alongside use solves the trade-off.
Citizen authority does not settle AI’s role
It makes continued use conditional on finding other ways for people to participate; it does not specify which decisions should remain under citizen control.
What this means and why it matters
What this means
The author questions resistance as a complete answer because deciding whether the gains outweigh the losses may be difficult. He raises another approach: keep the systems while finding other ways for people to take part in decisions.
Why it matters
The proposal shifts attention from whether to use such systems to how affected people can remain involved.
Conditions & assumptions
Source coverage: Full readable text of the author manuscript from an accessible mirror; not the publisher typeset version. The author presents preserving participation alongside continued use as a possibility, rather than a settled solution.
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 clearly raises accommodation as an alternative, while leaving its success open.