  Causal machine learning methods which flexibly generate heterogeneous
treatment effect estimates could be very useful tools for governments trying to
make and implement policy. However, as the critical artificial intelligence
literature has shown, governments must be very careful of unintended
consequences when using machine learning models. One way to try and protect
against unintended bad outcomes is with AI Fairness methods which seek to
create machine learning models where sensitive variables like race or gender do
not influence outcomes. In this paper we argue that standard AI Fairness
approaches developed for predictive machine learning are not suitable for all
causal machine learning applications because causal machine learning generally
(at least so far) uses modelling to inform a human who is the ultimate
decision-maker while AI Fairness approaches assume a model that is making
decisions directly. We define these scenarios as indirect and direct
decision-making respectively and suggest that policy-making is best seen as a
joint decision where the causal machine learning model usually only has
indirect power. We lay out a definition of fairness for this scenario - a model
that provides the information a decision-maker needs to accurately make a value
judgement about just policy outcomes - and argue that the complexity of causal
machine learning models can make this difficult to achieve. The solution here
is not traditional AI Fairness adjustments, but careful modelling and awareness
of some of the decision-making biases that these methods might encourage which
we describe.
