Read the following passage adapted from a contemporary critique regarding the application of machine learning in administrative law:
"Techno-optimist legal scholars like Elias Vance trumpet the integration of predictive algorithms into administrative agency adjudication as the ultimate realization of procedural efficiency. Hemsley, by contrast, advances a legally grounded, though ultimately overly rigid, critique, decrying this trend as a categorically unconstitutional delegation of quasi-judicial power. Yet, both perspectives fail to identify the central peril of the algorithmic administrative state: it does not eliminate human discretion, but rather obfuscates it, laundering substantive policy choices through a veneer of technical objectivity. To remedy this democratic deficit, reformers such as Chen advocate for algorithmic auditing frameworks. While laudably motivated, Chen’s proposal fundamentally underestimates the intractable illegibility of advanced neural networks. Ultimately, we must concede that incorporating these systems demands a profound recalibration of due process jurisprudence—a daunting endeavor, but one rendered inevitable by our current technological trajectory."
Based on the passage, match each of the following subjects with the descriptor that most accurately characterizes the author's attitude toward it.
- Vance's assessment of predictive algorithmsDismissive critique of its misplaced optimism
- Hemsley's objection to algorithmic delegationQualified acknowledgment of its foundation paired with ultimate disagreement
- Chen's proposed auditing frameworkSympathetic skepticism regarding its practical viability
- The recalibration of due process jurisprudenceResigned acceptance of an arduous necessity