Ok then (now it's much clearer). Now, - «suppressing» - the article in some parts surely may sound emotionally censorial («should be anathema»), but, - «embracing» - is the real-world context one of getting elements for further study with all caveats and common sense in place, or one of hyped glamorous reliance? Is it for the criminologist or for an agent? If the HR uses an AI sceening to hire you (first example in the article), you will think you dodged a bullet not working there, but if it is the Country to make decisions relying on it (maybe "false positives are expendable when dealing with big numbers" - which also, per se, would be the opposite of justice), well, there's less than 200 around, and many of them will not just let you in just because you want to.

So, new elements to study: all very interesting. But: "Sir, I see you have the traits of those who smear themselves with bananas for pleasure" - there are a number of issues with it. You know, constructs like, e.g. from Armando Iannucci: «...the sort of racist brush that could only be wielded by a Scottish-Italian» (about himself, in Charm Offensive).