Whatever method the border force used to determine this, I cannot imagine how AI is going to be more accurate.
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.
https://www.dental-tribune.com/news/dental-hygienist-fired-f...
Since this is the UK, see also the entire post office scandal. It was often blamed on a faulty accounting software developed by Fujitsu, even though the software put no one in jail. Human prosecutors did. But of course the British state apparatus will not admit to that, so all we hear is this story about software errors that conveniently ignores any human involvement in the process.
I cannot imagine how AI is going to be more INaccurate.
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.
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?
Seems like another measuring device, like a breathalyzer or radar gun, and should be held in court to the same (hopefully high) standards.
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.
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.
> 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
> 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.
It's a problem when people use this kind of system to circumvent the question of "do we have to make this judgment at all". We shouldn't, for example, predict from someone's photo how likely they are to commit a crime, so we're rightly skeptical of people who try to argue about system X or system Y might better predict it.
But as the source article covers, the UK's asylum laws require it to make this age judgment, because child migrants are entitled to special programs separate from adult migrants on account of their vulnerable status.
Unaccompanied child migrants receive support from local councils and are housed in the care system rather than more traditional asylum accommodation such as hotels.
They are entitled to legal protections which can simplify the asylum application system and make it easier to stay in the country for longer.
The decision to use the software comes after years of heightened levels of people crossing the English Channel in small boats and claiming asylum at the border.
A total of 111,084 people claimed asylum in the UK in the year ending June 2025, 14% more than in the previous year.
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.
A report, external carried out by the UK government's independent immigration inspector last year found cases where adult migrants had been classified as children - and cases where child migrants had been wrongly classified as adults.
The report said in the absence of a "foolproof" test, it was "inevitable that some age assessments will be wrong, which is clearly a cause for concern, especially where a child is denied the rights and protections to which they are entitled".
The government announced plans to use AI facial estimation technology to combat this problem last year.
Since then, the Home Office has been exploring the use of the technology and this week, a new contract was awarded to Harlow-based IT supplier Akhter Computers Ltd to deliver the scheme.
The contract will see the technology further tested and developed before being rolled out in mid-2027.
The contract will cost £322,000 over three years.
Minister for Border Security and Asylum, Alex Norris, said adult migrants "making false age claims have exploited the system and diverted vital support away from children at risk".
"That is why we are rolling out AI technology to put a stop to this, ensuring those who game the system are identified, detained and removed without delay, and those who deserve support and protection are given it," Norris said.
The Home Office has already carried out testing on images of people across different ethnicities and genders, including those that make up the asylum-seeking population, already in its operational system.
But test results have not been used for live decisions yet.
The technology is expected to be trialled for the first time on live cases of asylum seekers at Western Jet Foil, a processing centre in Dover, next year.
Age assessments of asylum seekers are already carried out by border force officials who use methods such as examining documents, appearance and demeanour to make an initial decision on age.
The new facial estimation technology will act as an additional tool to support officers at the border when a person's age is in doubt.
Social workers undertake assessments on asylum seekers claiming to be children, when their age is disputed by border officials.
The British Association of Social Workers (BASW) is warning that the government's plan to use AI in the assessment process will lead to major safeguarding mistakes.
"Assessing the ages of migrants is a complex process which social workers are best placed to do," said Professor Sam Baron, interim CEO of BASW.
"This important task should not be open to shortcuts through artificial intelligence, especially as the pitfalls of getting it wrong can lead to major safeguarding risks."
Last year, the UK government said it had concluded that the technology was the most "cost-effective option" to assess the age of asylum seekers.
But human rights groups have criticised the Home Office's plans to use the technology on children.
Anna Bacciarelli, a senior AI researcher at campaign group Human Rights Watch, said: "The government needs to scrap this deeply flawed approach to assessing child refugees.
"Experimenting with unproven technology to determine whether or not a child should be granted protections they desperately need and are legally entitled to is cruel and unconscionable.
"In addition to subjecting vulnerable children and young people to a dehumanising process that undermines their human rights, we don't actually know if facial age estimation works."
She said the technology had been used so far in shops and bars but not refugee processing centres, adding there was "no ethical way to move forward with these plans".
Correction: An earlier version of this story said age verification is carried out by trained immigration enforcement officers using X‑rays and MRI scans. The Home Office says it has the power to use these methods but does not currently do so.