Live data from Hacker News

Amazon scraps secret AI recruiting tool that showed bias against women

reuters.com

281–290 of 433 posts

Re: Amazon scraps secret AI recruiting tool that showed bias against women

#281
post #213

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Obviously not. Every time I've worked with someone incompetent they tend to get fired rather quickly and I don't work with them anymore. As far as female vs. male goes I've worked with way more males than females and I just haven't happened to work with any females that have been fired for incompetence. Perhaps my level of judgement on other's performance is too lax but I tend to focus on my own performance and less…

So there were a few incompetent males, no incompetent females - but you believe that it is just a statistical fluke. It might be - but it is still evidence for the bias, just very weak. I noted it because it seemed that you used it as an argument against bias - which it isn't.

This is my anecdotal experience. Obviously, other people have other experiences and the reality of the whole is probably different. The simple fact that there are more males than females in a job is not evidence of a bias perpetuated by sexist men.

Re: Amazon scraps secret AI recruiting tool that showed bias against women

#282

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The article didn't specify how they labeled resumes for training. You're assuming that it was based on whether or not the candidate was hire. Nobody with an iota of experience in machine learning would do something like that. (For obvious reasons: you can't tell from your data whether people you did not hire were truly bad.) A far more reasonable way would be to take resumes of people who were hired and train the mod…

Men are promoted quicker, and more often, than women.

I didn't write anything about promotions. I mentioned tenure and performance reviews.

If you had a way to accurately predict that some company would systematically donwrate you and eventually fire you or force you to quit, would you want to interview there? If you were a recruiter in that company and could accurately predict the same, would it be ethical for you to hire the candidate anyway?

This is not to say that I approve of blindly trusting AI to filter candidates, but the overall issue isn't nearly as simple as many comments here make it out to be.

Re: Amazon scraps secret AI recruiting tool that showed bias against women

#283
post #269

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Untapped market of engineers" yes it exists. The majority of my female friends with STEM degrees ended up as high school teachers. I had several older people suggest to me that teaching should be my preferred career choice because it was more flexible than a programming job (wtf...) "every tech company would be taking advantage of it" - nope, no one is. I don't know why but my guess is its hard to admit you're doing…

Maybe being a high school teacher is simply more pleasant than working in tech to some people? I don't think your example shows there is an untapped talent pool. Of course, in general, you can make a job more attractive (raise salaries, roll out red carpets, install slides...), and you will attract more people. That doesn't prove those people were an untapped talent pool. Presumably there is a price that would make a…

So why are the "some people" more often female than male?

I keep seeing all these explanations that are just begging the question.

Re: Amazon scraps secret AI recruiting tool that showed bias against women

#284
post #12

This is a direct and clear example of bias which made it easy to flag the ML algorithm. But what about ML algorithms that are inducing benefits to groups in less obvious contexts? What about groups that are not so easily identified as being protected classes by simple, human-understandable model features? What about cases where the features are just merely correlated with a subpopulation of a protected class? If we'r…

> the features are just merely correlated with a subpopulation of a protected class The article notes that Amazon's system rated down grads from two all-women's schools. But it immediately occurs to me to wonder what the algorithm did with candidates from heavily gender-imbalanced schools, which could be much harder to spot. RPI's Computer Science department is about 85% male, while CMU's is just over 50% male. CMU's…

A subtle point you may have missed, amazon knew about and accounted for the gender bias, the scrapped it because of all of the biases that they couldn't identify and were leery of. Most of your suggestions seem to be solving for the known biases, which I believe they did.

Also knowing some people who worked on this, they were VERY cognizant of re-encoding biases from the start of the project, it was one of the main reasons they thought the project might fail.

Re: Amazon scraps secret AI recruiting tool that showed bias against women

#285
post #267

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> But there are fewer women in software now than there were 30 years ago. That's not true. Firstly, it's more like 40-50 years ago. Secondly, there are far more women doing software development, but the gender ratio is dramatically different. Thirdly, that's because male interest exploded with the advent of personal computing the 80s. Lastly, "programming" as a profession used to be regarded as an offshot of secretar…

Okay, so TWO generations. Big deal. It still dismisses the "born that way" nonsense argument. "'programming' as a profession used to be regarded as an offshoot of secretarial work, which was dominated by women". Which begs the question of why women dominated secretarial work (and still do), while as programming became a more respected and better paying profession, it became male-dominated.

> Okay, so TWO generations. Big deal. It still dismisses the "born that way" nonsense argument.

It really doesn't. Unless you seriously think punch card programming is the same as modern programming, or that the fact that only women were secretaries that did programming somehow provides data on the relative strengths and inclinations of women and men for programming work at that time.

Look, it's clear that you have no idea of the breadth and depth of data available on this subject, and a trite "sexism/oppression" narrative explains hardly any of it. For instance, the fact that as a nation becomes more egalitarian, the gender disparities in STEM increase, ie. Nordic countries have worse gender disparities than here, despite having less sexism, and oppressive countries like Iran actually have gender parity in STEM fields.

If you want to actually learn about this subject, I suggest reading: https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fpsyg.2015.0018...

The fact is, there's good evidence that women are naturally less interested in STEM-like fields due to a well known psychological attitude on things vs. people. That attitude explains facts like why medicine and law have achieved approximate gender parity overall, but surgery is still dominated by men, pediatrics and family law is dominated by women.

Re: Amazon scraps secret AI recruiting tool that showed bias against women

#286

Anyone who has worked at tech companies and has been involved in the hiring process knows the following: The best thing to be right now is a woman engineer. You can easily get hired within the week. Unfortunately this doesn't seem to be well known outside of those involved in hiring.

This is simply silly. The reason why there's a bias toward hiring women in some roles at some corporations is because they are trying to course correct for the massive amount of systemic bias pushing the other way. For some reason many people (mostly men) seem to easily spot the one type of bias while never being able to see the other.

Re: Amazon scraps secret AI recruiting tool that showed bias against women

#287

This will be unpopular but I don't care. What is the evidence that the source data for this 'AI' is biased because the men it came from did not want to hire women? Is there a reserve of unemployed non-male engineers out there? If so what evidence is there of that? Technical talent is both expensive and a rare commodity for tech companies. The non-male engineers I've worked with have always been exceedingly competent,…

Oh, there are a bunch of us, even here in the SF Bay Area. Trouble is, we're older than 35, or don't have degrees from "top" schools, and/or don't have the "passion" for bizarre extended hiring rituals. I could staff an entire dev team with non-male people within a week.

So what do you do now? Btw some men in tech are also over 35 and tired of hiring rituals.

Re: Amazon scraps secret AI recruiting tool that showed bias against women

#288
The article never mentions what form of supervision Amazon used for building this model.

I can easily see a bias towards a particular gender arising, even when a team had intentions to do, simply because of how the data is selected.

________

Case 1 : They used similarity statistics between candidates that were hired and applicants.

This is the easy one. No need to label datasets. The approach is semi-supervised. It will also 100% cause a bias towards employees with similar profiles as those already working at Amazon. (ie. men)

________

Case 2 : They manually labelled/ranked a dataset of resumes and assigned them scores. (more likely)

Here the implicit bias of the mechanical turks / rubric would be visible. If higher scores were assigned to traditionally masculine activities, then male resumes would stand out. I doubt this was the case though, as people at Amazon are generally competent enough to not make such a trivial mistake. Also, gender only gets mentioned in non-technical skills (mean's team, women's club, etc), which in general are not the most relevant part of the profile anyways.

________

Speculation:

1.

> Instead, the technology favored candidates who described themselves using verbs more commonly found on male engineers’ resumes, such as “executed” and “captured,” one person said.

I wonder if this has anything to do with gender at all. All good resumes that I've read use action words irrespective of gender. Maybe type A personalities use words like "captured" more often than type B ones, and the % of men in type A categories are greater. Would discrimination against women in such a case be unfair ?....Maybe.....Maybe not.

2.

Extracurricular activities are more prominent on weaker resumes than stronger ones. So, the model may be weighing down resumes with too much extracurricular fluff vs technical skills. Men's activities are rarely prefaced with the word "men" in it. (they would just say Football team, Chess team). Women's activities on the other hand, always have the word "women" attached to it. If the extracurricular activities were penalized, then the words inside of them, including "women" would also be penalized. Thus, the model learns a latent gender bias without any bad intentions.

_________

In ML, one of my favorite statements is : "The model is only as good as the data it is trained on." If the data is not sufficient, rich enough or prepared in the correct manner, then unintended consequences are nearly guaranteed.

Re: Amazon scraps secret AI recruiting tool that showed bias against women

#289
post #220

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No body thinks that. You're way outside the overton window. Why is the health care field heavily biased in favor or female nurses and doctors? Are women smarter than men when it comes to biology/anatomy?

You're right, nobody thinks men are smarter than women. And it isn't true. So, let's think about why we see gender roles in employment. Why are there so few women software engineers? One possible explanation is that women just aren't smart enough. If you don't believe that (and I don't), then you need another explanation. Maybe it's because of sexism. But if you don't want to believe it's sexism (as the OP implied),…

> And that's where hands come up empty.

Except they're not, they're only empty if you haven't done any reading in this field.

> That leads to nonsense like the person on this thread who said women are "wired differently", which presumably makes them less suitable.

That was your supposition, not the only intepretation of those words. In fact, the weight of the evidence seems to support his statement, but similar to Damore, people like you are just fond of attacking reactionary strawman interpretations of the words actually employed.

> Which is just a polite way of saying women are too dumb to program, without facing the reality that that's exactly it means.

No it's not. "Wired differently" can mean many things, only one of which refers to competence.

Re: Amazon scraps secret AI recruiting tool that showed bias against women

#290
post #283

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Maybe being a high school teacher is simply more pleasant than working in tech to some people? I don't think your example shows there is an untapped talent pool. Of course, in general, you can make a job more attractive (raise salaries, roll out red carpets, install slides...), and you will attract more people. That doesn't prove those people were an untapped talent pool. Presumably there is a price that would make a…

So why are the "some people" more often female than male? I keep seeing all these explanations that are just begging the question.

In my opinion, because women have less need for high salaries, and also because women might more often be socially able to become teachers, compared to men. Also, women and men are different and have different preferences on average.

There is also the aspect that teaching is much less technically demanding.

What makes you so sure it is discrimination? If it was discrimination, why don't these women just found all-women companies?

Post reply on HN