Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

NYC may require landlords and realtors to disclose the use of AI in listings

petapixel.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

261–270 of 285 posts

Re: NYC may require landlords and realtors to disclose the use of AI in listings

#261

Post by filoleg »

jfrbfbreudh wrote: post #173
pclmulqdq wrote: post #116

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There is square footage on many NYC listings, but it’s wrong. They often have the square footage of the total area occupied by the apartment, including all the interior walls and columns that can take 20% of the area away.

I didn’t know the square footage of my apartment until I had built an app that utilizes LiDAR to actually measure it. Broker told me 650 square feet - it’s precisely 505 square feet. (Won’t advertise my app, but you can find many on the iOS App Store). Would be nice for StreetEasy to have some kind of third party verification about apartment size claims.

If you are hesitant to mention it in the comments, please consider at least putting it in your profile bio. This sounds like a genuinely useful tool that I would personally want to use myself.

Re: NYC may require landlords and realtors to disclose the use of AI in listings

#262

Post by sgerenser »

qurren wrote: post #205
idiotsecant wrote: post #199

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Relax. This post is wildly aggressive for no reason.

I'm just tired of regulators realizing the right things to regulate but not implementing them correctly. Job postings must include a salary range? Who the fuck thought of that? Did they even ask a mathematician whether providing the min() and max() would be useful rather than mean(), median(), and std(), which is what the law really should require?

For many tech jobs, that still wouldn’t help much. Salary alone is often half or less of total compensation. They’d also need to include stock grants and bonuses for the comparison to be meaningful.

Re: NYC may require landlords and realtors to disclose the use of AI in listings

#264

Post by qurren »

sgerenser wrote: post #262
qurren wrote: post #205

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm just tired of regulators realizing the right things to regulate but not implementing them correctly. Job postings must include a salary range? Who the fuck thought of that? Did they even ask a mathematician whether providing the min() and max() would be useful rather than mean(), median(), and std(), which is what the law really should require?

For many tech jobs, that still wouldn’t help much. Salary alone is often half or less of total compensation. They’d also need to include stock grants and bonuses for the comparison to be meaningful.

Good point. Absolutely include mean, mean, std of stock grants, bonuses, and sign-on bonuses by law as well.

Re: NYC may require landlords and realtors to disclose the use of AI in listings

#265

Post by master-lincoln »

sokoloff wrote: post #243
qurren wrote: post #205

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm just tired of regulators realizing the right things to regulate but not implementing them correctly. Job postings must include a salary range? Who the fuck thought of that? Did they even ask a mathematician whether providing the min() and max() would be useful rather than mean(), median(), and std(), which is what the law really should require?

How many people who are considering hiring their first few employees have an idea of what the minimum they’d likely pay and the maximum they’d likely pay for those new positions? Almost all. Now how many could even tell you the rough definition of standard deviation, let alone be able to give a value for it? Almost none. As an applicant for a single opening, it’s not obvious that standard deviation is helpful either.…

we need less normal people

Re: NYC may require landlords and realtors to disclose the use of AI in listings

#266

Post by qurren »

sokoloff wrote: post #243
qurren wrote: post #205

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm just tired of regulators realizing the right things to regulate but not implementing them correctly. Job postings must include a salary range? Who the fuck thought of that? Did they even ask a mathematician whether providing the min() and max() would be useful rather than mean(), median(), and std(), which is what the law really should require?

How many people who are considering hiring their first few employees have an idea of what the minimum they’d likely pay and the maximum they’d likely pay for those new positions? Almost all. Now how many could even tell you the rough definition of standard deviation, let alone be able to give a value for it? Almost none. As an applicant for a single opening, it’s not obvious that standard deviation is helpful either.…

> As an applicant for a single opening

You're nitpicking at details. I'm sure you're smart enough to figure out how to write it so that this isn't an issue, but it seems you're more interested in "taking the other side" rather than thinking together about how to increase job compensation transparency.

Here's the problem with minimums: Companies posting ranges of $100K-$900K. Yes, I've seen them.

Here's a hint for everyone else: For small companies and single openings they can just aggregate mean/median/std by job level (E5 average, M1 average), or aggregate horizontally by team (HR average, ops average), whatever. Anything to increase transparency. If you're criticizing the math instead of building on the math, you're clearly against job transparency.

Re: NYC may require landlords and realtors to disclose the use of AI in listings

#267

Post by sokoloff »

qurren wrote: post #266
sokoloff wrote: post #243

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How many people who are considering hiring their first few employees have an idea of what the minimum they’d likely pay and the maximum they’d likely pay for those new positions? Almost all. Now how many could even tell you the rough definition of standard deviation, let alone be able to give a value for it? Almost none. As an applicant for a single opening, it’s not obvious that standard deviation is helpful either.…

> As an applicant for a single opening You're nitpicking at details. I'm sure you're smart enough to figure out how to write it so that this isn't an issue, but it seems you're more interested in "taking the other side" rather than thinking together about how to increase job compensation transparency. Here's the problem with minimums: Companies posting ranges of $100K-$900K. Yes, I've seen them. Here's a hint for eve…

I’m in favor of transparency (and consistently argue for that and act accordingly inside my own company). I’m against adding information that will confuse far more people than it will help.

A company listing $100k-$900k per year for a role that’s not commissioned sales is exhibiting malicious compliance and should be dealt with directly as such rather than adding an additional nearly useless measure to somehow help smoke that out or avoid it.

Re: NYC may require landlords and realtors to disclose the use of AI in listings

#268

Post by preg_match »

cr1895 wrote: post #195
pclmulqdq wrote: post #116

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There is square footage on many NYC listings, but it’s wrong. They often have the square footage of the total area occupied by the apartment, including all the interior walls and columns that can take 20% of the area away.

Wild. In Netherlands (and I assume other European countries as well) there’s a regulatory norm for how spaces should be measured - what counts as liveable, non-liveable, etc. It’s so much fairer and clearer for everyone involved. https://www.nen.nl/bouw/beheer-en-onderhoud/oppervlaktebepal...

We largely have these regulations in the US too (at the state level), we just don't reuse them. Naturally there are rules about what is livable versus what is not. A balcony is not. A room with no windows isn't even a bedroom. That kind of stuff.

It would be truly trivial to then just transform that to calculating square footage, and many states do just that. But not all. It's a problem of motivation, not necessarily ability or cost.

Re: NYC may require landlords and realtors to disclose the use of AI in listings

#269

Post by preg_match »

LgWoodenBadger wrote: post #124
hbarka wrote: post #111

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> and I cannot think of a logical reason to not provide that information. The reason is simple. Omission is deception.

If it had a “good” square footage, it would be touted front and center. Because it’s not, you know it doesn’t. I see this all the time with motorcycle PPE. If something was CE A, AA, or AAA rated, it’d be at the top of the description/specs. When it’s not, I know it’s not so I just move on.

Where it gets tricky is when the good people and bad people start working together because they both sell bad products. What I mean is: purposefully not advertising your good traits front and center, so that your worse product then "shine" more. And then everyone catches on and all your signals are gone. It happens sometimes.

Re: NYC may require landlords and realtors to disclose the use of AI in listings

#270

Post by preg_match »

Symbiote wrote: post #201
stevekemp wrote: post #188

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's a landlord's market because there are not enough properties, if there was a larger supply the tenants would be able to make choices and defacto reject bad options. How do you change that, short of building more?

Require advertisements for property to include the floor (and ground) area.

Advertising is already a pretty strict domain by necessity. We used to allow just about every lie under the sun in advertising, and it was universally bad. We systematically broke that down one by one over many decades, and we're still doing it! I mean, these days you can't even sell tobacco without saying "hey we're trying to kill you btw".

This is a very well-trodden path, I think.

Post reply on HN