I am not sure how AI helps to bolster perception. It is just a machine and it does not pass moral judgement on someones conduct. If an employer were using it to make hiring decisions then it might point out the pros and cons of taking on someone with a conviction. But at the end of the day a human has to make the final decision.

First may I say I have so much empathy for you having gone through this discrimination myself so many times. From my release to when I could officially say I am retired, I applied for over 2000 roles. Many I achieved interviews for, often receiving offers which only disappeared on disclosure.
Some roles I disclosed prior to the interview, so when the interview was confirmed I felt confident. Trouble was I believe this was either to (a) tick a box for some statistic, (b) they thought they could persuade HR my skills were deemed more important than "social opinion", (c) wanting info on my previous roles to help with their project issues, (d) voyeurism! Yes I believe that by the way the questions went.
Though I can say one bonus of now being retired is that i do not have to go through that process anymore. However, my volunteering attempts i.e. charity shops, also had to end; which caused many an interesting discussion with my OM's over the years.

The hardest element in ways is how the "authorities" sell the idea they believe in "rehabilitation" and "reintegration" as being an important factor in stopping re-offending, yet promote the opposite constantly by their words and actions which in turn cloud, confuse and manipulate the general public into believing every sexual offence contains: violence, rape, grooming and controlling abusive aspects.

In short, with this ever increasing concern of "perception" encompassing every aspect of human behavior, with AI being used as bolstering tool to support that "perception" as well, any role that involves any background check I would unfortunately ignore. 

I appreciate if you are not made aware of a or the possibility for a check, my thoughts fail. The answer to what to do then is purely down to the individual, as only they can chose I am sorry.

Good luck in your endeavours but please never stop believing in yourself.

Society suggests I must let go of all my expectations but I disagree, as whilst I have a voice, I have hope.

Learn from yesterday, live for today, hope is for tomorrow else what is left if you remove a mans hope.
------------------------------

This forum supports these words, thank you Unlock and your contributors.

Long story short: I was offered a role in a new company. It did not require a DBS nor was it in any regulated sectors. My conviction is spent and has been for years. Once I got into the onboarding process, a 'vetting' company contacted me wanting to know previous names/addresses etc. My name change was quite recent so I have not built up enough years with this new name to be able to circumvent these unfair questions. This could have led to the possibility of my previous identity being disclosed and it would not take long for them to find the odd internet story here or there, despite my best efforts at playing 'wack-a-mole' with Google. I assessed the risk as being too high so I withdrew. Thankfully I was able to keep my original job. Has anyone else had experience of these sorts of low-level vetting processes? Did your previous name come up? And did they then 'dig deeper' and pass on all this to the employer?

BTW - I know Unlock is doing its very best when it comes to lobbying government about the unfair and unjust impact of the google effect but now with AI turbocharging this whole arena and basically offering any HR team an extremely powerful, free background checker, the need for the ROA to be brought into the 21st Century - and applied without exception to these tech giants - is more pressing than ever.

RM