> In the year ending March 2026, more than 6,400 migrants claiming to be children were age assessed at the border, with 43% found to be adults, according to Home Office data.
Whatever method the border force used to determine this, I cannot imagine how AI is going to be more accurate.
The process, per the article, is that a border agent makes a determination, and if it is not what the applicant claims, then a social worker takes over to make a final determination.
That is a massive time sink for social workers, and the appeal of having an automated system is pretty obvious. Considering that it is already all largely guesswork, I'm not really sure that "more accurate" is even an acceptance criteria for them right now- they'd probably be very happy with "mostly the same accuracy".
Of course, the social workers are opposing being taken out of the loop, but I can't imagine that there isn't already plenty of work for them elsewhere in the UK.
Purely curious if there's better ways, like I know X Rays can get us pretty close for children and adolescents, but that might not be the best way to do it, I wonder if there's other alternatives that are low cost.
"a computer can never be held accountable, therefore a computer must never make a [legal] decision"
in my observation: when humans are automated out of a process due to the human element being inconvenient, the perceived efficiency gains are often because wronged individuals have less recourse in the automated system.
> In another example, a Vietnamese national was initially given the benefit of the doubt at the first triage that took place in the waiting area. The CIO and social worker commented on his “soft face”, which they said was consistent with his claimed age of 17. However, his “developed shoulders” and “huge hands” cast doubt for them, as did a “tiny bit of stubble” that they noticed when they asked him to raise his chin. The CIO and social worker told inspectors afterwards that Vietnamese young people were typically difficult to assess because they “did not have the same ageing process”, and “did not show signs of ageing”. When asked where the evidence for this was, they said that it was knowledge gained through their own experience. The social worker said, “It is just genetics”, but was unable to support this with evidence.
If I had to choose between being judged by an AI model and being judged based on ad hoc stereotypes of what my race's shoulders and hands typically look like, I'd definitely pick the AI.
I understand that "no" isn't the answer you're looking for but I'm not sure what else to say in response. A programmatic system is the opposite of an ad hoc stereotype; it can be directly tested for problems and directly fixed if it shows those problems.
I think the only plausible argument for AI here is not "it knows age better than humans," but "it might be more consistent than ad hoc visual judgments by different officers"
it depends, i'll concede that AI is unfortunately incredibly good at pattern matching, if you give it 100 billion pictures of a 13 year old, and 100 billion pictures of a "not 13 year old", you'd be surprised how accurate the pattern matching can get
Why can’t it be more accurate? Sure just doing it on facial features will have some limit on accuracy but it may be less biased and more accurate than human judgment (not always but it’s possible). I think you could then confirm any finding of falsified age using more expensive techniques - like analyzing medical imaging, dental records in particular. That can be the “confirmation” step to improve the overall accuracy of the process.
The point of this is unambiguously to use technology as an accountability sink. You can't have a human eyeball age and call that a "process." You want a machine to point to instead. Its accuracy or lack thereof is immaterial to anyone who would seriously suggest using it.
As ever, this is the real risk of "AI"; not the technology itself so much as the technology-as-social-construct. A machine oracle we can abdicate decisions to with a facade of neutrality.
In this case, the facade is painting over the underlying motivation which is to reject asylum claims. You could imagine a world in which it is instead used to scan and fast-track claims through an automated and unaccountable process, but the form of the deployment has baked-in the outcome and interests of the powerful. Don't be surprised if there's another automated AI system that totally-pinky-promise-for-sure validates that rich tourists aren't terrorists so they can walk through security unmolested and another system that uses AI to flag "suspicious behavior" for the proles. The outcome is baked in, the AI just provides plausibility and legitimacy.
>the facade is painting over the underlying motivation which is to reject asylum claims.
That feels like an unfair read. Asylum seekers claiming to be younger than they are is a known reality, and it makes total sense that a system would need to guard against that. Are you suggesting we just take every person who shows up at the border at their word?
related: I'm an non-white (east asian) immigrant in a country in the western hemisphere (non EU). I have been harassed and shouted at by almost exclusively MENA immigrants - usually of a young age - for no fault of my own. Almost all people from my background share this experience.
I even spoke to MENA immigrants who work in highly skilled environments and they don't seem to happy with the situation either. It is unclear why EU is doing this to themselves and the anti immigrant sentiment that is developing from this is hurting normal immigrants like me as well.
Immigrants and immigration should evoke a good sentiment and good emotion - selection effects are nice. As a libertarian I think immigration is a default good thing but not this way.
I wish EU would be more selective instead of steadfastly blank-slate "tolerant".
Reminds me of the story of this dentist in Sweden who was fired for raising concerns about how 80% of migrant children he was treating were actually adults, based on their teeth:
> In the year ending March 2026, more than 6,400 migrants claiming to be children were age assessed at the border, with 43% found to be adults, according to Home Office data.
Whatever method the border force used to determine this, I cannot imagine how AI is going to be more accurate.
6,400 is maybe a tiny fraction of the total. Maybe AI will allow them to have way more breadth?
The process, per the article, is that a border agent makes a determination, and if it is not what the applicant claims, then a social worker takes over to make a final determination.
That is a massive time sink for social workers, and the appeal of having an automated system is pretty obvious. Considering that it is already all largely guesswork, I'm not really sure that "more accurate" is even an acceptance criteria for them right now- they'd probably be very happy with "mostly the same accuracy".
Of course, the social workers are opposing being taken out of the loop, but I can't imagine that there isn't already plenty of work for them elsewhere in the UK.
Purely curious if there's better ways, like I know X Rays can get us pretty close for children and adolescents, but that might not be the best way to do it, I wonder if there's other alternatives that are low cost.
"a computer can never be held accountable, therefore a computer must never make a [legal] decision"
in my observation: when humans are automated out of a process due to the human element being inconvenient, the perceived efficiency gains are often because wronged individuals have less recourse in the automated system.
When you put the computer in charge, it tends to say no
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x0YGZPycMEU
It might be helpful to be a bit more specific about what's being automated. One story from the underlying report (https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/687f6f9dfdc19...):
> In another example, a Vietnamese national was initially given the benefit of the doubt at the first triage that took place in the waiting area. The CIO and social worker commented on his “soft face”, which they said was consistent with his claimed age of 17. However, his “developed shoulders” and “huge hands” cast doubt for them, as did a “tiny bit of stubble” that they noticed when they asked him to raise his chin. The CIO and social worker told inspectors afterwards that Vietnamese young people were typically difficult to assess because they “did not have the same ageing process”, and “did not show signs of ageing”. When asked where the evidence for this was, they said that it was knowledge gained through their own experience. The social worker said, “It is just genetics”, but was unable to support this with evidence.
If I had to choose between being judged by an AI model and being judged based on ad hoc stereotypes of what my race's shoulders and hands typically look like, I'd definitely pick the AI.
Isn't the AI going to use the same ad hoc stereotypes?
I understand that "no" isn't the answer you're looking for but I'm not sure what else to say in response. A programmatic system is the opposite of an ad hoc stereotype; it can be directly tested for problems and directly fixed if it shows those problems.
I think the only plausible argument for AI here is not "it knows age better than humans," but "it might be more consistent than ad hoc visual judgments by different officers"
it depends, i'll concede that AI is unfortunately incredibly good at pattern matching, if you give it 100 billion pictures of a 13 year old, and 100 billion pictures of a "not 13 year old", you'd be surprised how accurate the pattern matching can get
Fixed it for you:
I cannot imagine how AI is going to be more INaccurate.
Why can’t it be more accurate? Sure just doing it on facial features will have some limit on accuracy but it may be less biased and more accurate than human judgment (not always but it’s possible). I think you could then confirm any finding of falsified age using more expensive techniques - like analyzing medical imaging, dental records in particular. That can be the “confirmation” step to improve the overall accuracy of the process.
I'm sure that won't be misused at all.
The point of this is unambiguously to use technology as an accountability sink. You can't have a human eyeball age and call that a "process." You want a machine to point to instead. Its accuracy or lack thereof is immaterial to anyone who would seriously suggest using it.
As ever, this is the real risk of "AI"; not the technology itself so much as the technology-as-social-construct. A machine oracle we can abdicate decisions to with a facade of neutrality.
In this case, the facade is painting over the underlying motivation which is to reject asylum claims. You could imagine a world in which it is instead used to scan and fast-track claims through an automated and unaccountable process, but the form of the deployment has baked-in the outcome and interests of the powerful. Don't be surprised if there's another automated AI system that totally-pinky-promise-for-sure validates that rich tourists aren't terrorists so they can walk through security unmolested and another system that uses AI to flag "suspicious behavior" for the proles. The outcome is baked in, the AI just provides plausibility and legitimacy.
>the facade is painting over the underlying motivation which is to reject asylum claims.
That feels like an unfair read. Asylum seekers claiming to be younger than they are is a known reality, and it makes total sense that a system would need to guard against that. Are you suggesting we just take every person who shows up at the border at their word?
> The point of this is unambiguously to use technology as an accountability sink.
Seems like another measuring device, like a breathalyzer or radar gun, and should be held in court to the same (hopefully high) standards.
I think "accountability sink" is the right phrase here
related: I'm an non-white (east asian) immigrant in a country in the western hemisphere (non EU). I have been harassed and shouted at by almost exclusively MENA immigrants - usually of a young age - for no fault of my own. Almost all people from my background share this experience.
I even spoke to MENA immigrants who work in highly skilled environments and they don't seem to happy with the situation either. It is unclear why EU is doing this to themselves and the anti immigrant sentiment that is developing from this is hurting normal immigrants like me as well.
Immigrants and immigration should evoke a good sentiment and good emotion - selection effects are nice. As a libertarian I think immigration is a default good thing but not this way.
I wish EU would be more selective instead of steadfastly blank-slate "tolerant".
Reminds me of the story of this dentist in Sweden who was fired for raising concerns about how 80% of migrant children he was treating were actually adults, based on their teeth:
https://www.dental-tribune.com/news/dental-hygienist-fired-f...
It is similar, in the sense that pseudoscience is being used to potentially ruin people’s lives.
Nothing magically happens to teeth when someone turns 18.
Wisdom teeth develop during teen years and may erupt as early as 16, as late as 25, or not at all.
The only wishful thinking here is assuming people won't lie about their age and then you end up with "children" competing in school-level competitions
> may erupt as early as 16, as late as 25
Cool so assuming the average age to be 20.5 this means someone with wisdom teeth is more likely to be of age than not.
Put this fact together with other factors like wrist x-ray estimation and obviously looking like an adult and maybe we can have some common sense
So out of 100 claimed children, 40 of them are actually children and you'd want to reject them because of the law of big numbers?