I've said for years the main use case for AI is to dilute and launder accountability so that decisions can be seen as the expression of corporate entities and committees where no individual can be held responsible or accountable. AI is to bureaucracy what cryptocurrency is money laundering.
Over a decade ago I was hired to do a privacy impact assessment for a government project that was going to "use AI to detect benefits fraud." Turned out under the architecture docs, the "AI" was a data repository managed by one of the big credit reporting companies, and their "AI" would flag back individuals to the govt benefits agency for further scrutiny. The company got to keep the data, there was no anonymization or de-identification, let alone any consideration of how the company would use the data after, or for re-linking the data to other data sets to make credit decisions about household members and other relations. The fact that the government was outsourcing their fraud detection to the very credit reporting and collection agencies who would be exploiting the data for credit decisions was also what nobody was supposed to say out loud or write down.
The point is, so-called AI in this case was used as a proxy to hide a relationship between the government and a private company and as a way to absolve either of any accountability for marking someone as a suspect for benefits fraud. The govt didn't have to make or document a regulation mandating them to do fishing expeditions, or create a paper trail on how random their selection of someone was for scrutiny, nor did they have to disclose that their AI system was just the sleazy credit reporting company pretending to be an "AI."
The problem with proxying decisions through so-called AI is that the bureaucracy only exists by its direct mandates, and the people in it are always trying to get around the constraints that imposes, so in these cases, AI is just a false-pretext generation machine. That any agency can act using "randomness," in any situation at all is a level of discretion that is very likely to be inconsistent with their actual mandates, imo.