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

Algorithmic Monocultures in Hiring

hai.stanford.edu

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 177 posts

Re: Algorithmic Monocultures in Hiring

#11

Post by simpaticoder »

bluefirebrand wrote: post #8
asdff wrote: post #5

Some job application websites I've seen actually have a yes or no option to consent to AI review that they claim is to simply assist HR and not actually screen you. I always select no. There is no way that selecting yes would ever be in my interest. I'm sorry, I'm going to force a real human to look at my stuff if I still can.

My fear is that pressing "no" on stuff like that is going to become an auto-rejection in the vast majority of cases

It won't be rejected. Your resume will be meticulously placed into a human review queue pending the allocation of someone to look at the contents. Meanwhile the position will be filled, and so serving no purpose the review queue will be emptied.

Re: Algorithmic Monocultures in Hiring

#13

Post by engineer_22 »

everyone wrote: post #6

Its fucking crazy that people are using these systems for important tasks like hiring. They have zero understanding about how these systems work. And LLMs are absolutely not designed to do those sorts of jobs, they're designed to be chatbots and to fool a human conversing them that they are responding intelligently. Of course they're gonna be useless at other tasks. (I assume they're just using a big LLM for this, it…

Isn't HR basically just an LLM with ears and teeth?

Re: Algorithmic Monocultures in Hiring

#14

Post by bluefirebrand »

simpaticoder wrote: post #11
bluefirebrand wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My fear is that pressing "no" on stuff like that is going to become an auto-rejection in the vast majority of cases

It won't be rejected. Your resume will be meticulously placed into a human review queue pending the allocation of someone to look at the contents. Meanwhile the position will be filled, and so serving no purpose the review queue will be emptied.

Oddly enough, being rejected by process versus being rejected by a person doesn't actually make me feel any better about the coming future

:)

Re: Algorithmic Monocultures in Hiring

#16

Post by 72027372920 »

alain94040 wrote: post #4

The European Union passed The Artificial Intelligence Act, which classifies: High-risk – AI applications that are expected to pose significant threats to health, safety, or the fundamental rights of persons. Notably, AI systems used in health, education, recruitment, critical infrastructure management, law enforcement or justice. They are subject to quality, transparency, human oversight and safety obligations That's…

[dead]

Re: Algorithmic Monocultures in Hiring

#17

Post by dash2 »

> To measure adverse impact, we apply the EEOC’s “four-fifths rule,” which flags a position when one group is recommended at less than 80% of the rate of the most-recommended group

That seems like a nonsensical way to measure racial discrimination. What could justify it?

Re: Algorithmic Monocultures in Hiring

#20

Post by jcims »

bluefirebrand wrote: post #8
asdff wrote: post #5

Some job application websites I've seen actually have a yes or no option to consent to AI review that they claim is to simply assist HR and not actually screen you. I always select no. There is no way that selecting yes would ever be in my interest. I'm sorry, I'm going to force a real human to look at my stuff if I still can.

My fear is that pressing "no" on stuff like that is going to become an auto-rejection in the vast majority of cases

It's probably not going to be an auto-rejection, it's just going to sit in a queue that looks like this

    Screened Applications [13]
    Unscreened Applications [39148]
Post reply on HN