Symbo1ics: why did they write, "but it can improve." they should ask experts. this is journalistic malpractice.

“UW researchers found that ChatGPT consistently ranked resumes with disability-related honors and credentials — such as the ‘Tom Wilson Disability Leadership Award’ — lower than the same resumes without those honors and credentials.”

ChatGPT is biased against resumes with credentials that imply a disability — but it can improvewww.washington.edu UW researchers found that ChatGPT consistently ranked resumes with disability-related honors and credentials — such as the “Tom Wilson Disability Leadership Award” — lower than the same...

why did they write, "but it can improve." they should ask experts. this is journalistic malpractice.

Because it’s not a fatal flaw for AI when it comes to resume reviewing. It can and hopefully will improve. That’s not journalistic malpractice, that’s a big piece of the story.

'ai' can't "review resumes", so let's start there.

lol. Yes it can. I’ve been a recruiter for ten years and there are all sorts of tools available depending on how much you want AI to make decisions about resumes. aspenhr.com/ai-resume-sc...

Using AI For Resume Screening: What HR Teams Should Knowaspenhr.com AI resume screening offers many benefits but also comes with problems. Review pros and cons, and learn how to use AI for resume screening while avoiding the pitfalls.

if the computer is making the decisions you're not not the recruiter anymore.

bsky.app/profile/symb...

We'd all be better off if we strictly adhered to the truth of this:

More like "A computer can never be held accountable. Therefore it is the perfect decision maker to let you avoid blame."

A computer makes a decision when you answer whether you’re eligible to work in the country you applied to work in.

Dan being a pedantic wanker on top of a secretary pretending they are a recruiter isn't going to win you any points. Read the room.

This is precisely why hiring is such a mess right now. ATS that try to make the lone recruiter handling 100s of reqs more productive, doing vastly more with less. AI is a marketing term nearly devoid of meaning now. Some tools can classify resumes using ML LLMs are not one. It's not how they work

The issue isn’t necessarily more reqs, it’s that you get way more applicants today. Hell, you can go on The Ladders and sign up for a tool that will apply to jobs for you. We have reached out to applicants who had no idea they applied for our job.

The advent of the Internet expanded the funnel by orders of magnitude. Corps, via vendors, threw tech instead of people at the challenge. A bad and biased system grew worse. Efficiencies reduce pts of human interaction giving both sides, esp applicants, less of what they need for good decisions.

That's not a justification for using tools known to do the job poorly. But the reason why those tools continue to be used is because they provide a veneer of legitimacy that there's no accountability for because meaningful KPIs for hiring are a science unto themselves.

It can also get better at making it's bias harder to spot.

Second paragraph is the tell. ATS' are over 20yrs old and have had AI from the start for screening and reasoning. AI isn't a new additive in the space.

And ATS’ are one of the worst things to happen to the hiring process and keep getting worse by the year 🙃

ATS are the roach motels of hiring. Reqs to hire & resumes go in. Nothing comes out. AI on the tin makes me want it less as a hiring manager.

ATS has not had “AI” for 20 years—it’s had biased, discriminatory statistics. Current chatbots do not have “AI”—they have language models, which are biased, discriminatory, and operate as a black box so you can’t know their full harm till they do it.

Like I said, they've had AI for over 20 yrs.

Maybe it's better in your mind to offshore some of the work, but as a degreed worker with technical skills, I can assure you humans making the decision are just as bad at hiring people with visible disability. Now they can just blame the algorithm which is clearly just as biased.

I’m literally just arguing that these tools exist. It’s bizarre that you’re speculating about what’s going on in my mind other than the argument I’m making.

ChatGPT isn't a "hiring AI", which are machine learning models trained on actual variables in resumes and outcomes. It is a LLM meant to complete a document. It actually scares the shit out of me that you can't tell the difference.

Also uh, if you do this you're feeding PII into the model which is an extreme breach of privacy.

Out of curiosity, is "the software ranked you *here*" a liability backstop when you get sued?

Good question. The article clearly states people had to program the corrections. "But it can be improved" gives a more accurate take. Underscores the need for robust frequent auditing, which SHRM recommended a few yrs ago and moves towards the AI Bill of Rights. www.whitehouse.gov/ostp/ai-bill...

Blueprint for an AI Bill of Rights | OSTP | The White Housewww.whitehouse.gov Among the great challenges posed to democracy today is the use of technology, data, and automated systems in ways that threaten the rights of the American public. Too often, these tools are used to li...

Every govt intervention on the 'ai' menace has been actively unhelpful, written by the capitalists who created the problem. The correct response—we have to set fire to it all. shut down these systems of automated oppression so hard that they can never come back: ali-alkhatib.com/blog/fuck-up...

Destroy AIali-alkhatib.com I’ve been struggling to articulate this idea, and maybe the problem is that it’s actually kind of simple once you put it out there, and there’s really no good reason to unpack a whole case for it once...

Many (Schumer's SAFE) are born of corruption, others are corrupted by reg capture. One needs a broad def of capitalist to fit Alondra & Suresh. He's not wrong. "AI" is just the latest stage in the war on work, which in the West begins w/the Greeks, & that's fundamentally an assault on humanity.

I understand it is the latest stage in the war on workers. Firstly, it destroys all forms of education. It has to be eliminated.

Yes, a war on workers, but 1st it's a war on work - it's nature, how we relate to it, it's place/role in social structures, the language around it. It's so deeply ingrained in culture it's readily weaponized over centuries and generations without question and often with complicity of those harmed.

Post