While I symphatise with the sentiment...
... it's all too easy to read "might makes right" into your comment. And that's not what society ought to be about. AIUI this system is about identifying the weak, not about what to do once you've pinpointed them.
While I fully agree that in order to /help/ people one shouldn't try and coddle them to death, instead helping them to learn to stand up for themselves whenever possible, that isn't what this is about. This is about figuring out who are the weak in need of help.
It brings up a question, though: What do you do with your hard-won information pinpointing vulnerable people in need of help and then it turns out there isn't anything you can actually do to help them?
And then there are questions like: What happens with false positives? What happens if false negatives are pointed out? What is the theoretical basis for all this and how has the methodology been tested? That sort of thing. I see nothing about that in the article, meaning the software is more or less treated like a silver bullet. Well, we all know that'll surely work, don't we?