The fundamental problem with using any kind of AI in decision-making is that they are neither blind to the person nor are they bias-free, nor are they unmanipulable.

In fact, the fundamental basis of any kind of machine-learning-based AI is that it replicates the training set. If there are biases in the training set (and there always are, it's unavoidable), then you will see the exact same bias in the output.

LLMs (the kind of AI used here) are even worse than just a pure statistical model, since they are super easy to manipulate. Word your request correctly, and it will always approve whatever you put before it. Word it wrong and it will reject a good proposal.

They are also not deterministic. Every time you put something before an LLM you will get a different output, even with exactly the same input.

And they are under the control of the provider of the LLM. That means, whoever provides the LLM can easily manipulate what kind of output the LLM will give.

Effectively, they just gave a minister position to a mindless puppet controlled by an unelected contractor.

AI is not an emotion-less pure-rational arbiter of truth. That's science-fiction.

So the argument boils down to "If AI was something entirely different than the whole realm of AI, machine learning and statistics it's based on, then it could be suitable for the job".

And if you leave out the bread and the patty and instead added spaghetti, cream, eggs and ham, a burger would be a pretty decent carbonara. But then it has nothing to do with a burger any more.