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

171–177 of 177 posts

Re: Algorithmic Monocultures in Hiring

#171

Post by tptacek »

paisawalla wrote: post #30
dash2 wrote: post #17

> 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?

This is an application of the disparate impact doctrine. Even facially neutral policies are considered suspect if they produce results that correlate against protected groups, irrespective of intent. This doctrine is the basis for much of employment law. It is a significant reason why employers don't administer IQ tests (or equivalents) to screen candidates since ~the 90s. A common objection to the doctrine is that i…

No it isn't. This is an Internet myth. IQ tests in white-collar employment aren't unlawful or even risky, and several household name giant corporations (with deep pockets for plaintiffs attorneys) do so openly for some of their roles.

Re: Algorithmic Monocultures in Hiring

#172

Post by dash2 »

gacgacgac wrote: post #37
dash2 wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Thanks. I read the article: > Since the 80% test does not involve probability distributions to determine whether the disparity is a “beyond chance” occurrence, it is usually not regarded as a definitive test for adverse impact. Instead, other statistically significance tests, such as the standard deviation analysis, may be used for this purpose. But then my question recurs: isn’t this a ridiculous way to measure disc…

It's not used to measure discrimination. It's used to identify outcomes that appear to be potentially discriminatory. You have to do the legwork afterwards. Like. If I am evaluating a developer on lines of code written, I am a bad manager. But if an engineer has 40% fewer lines of code than the team median, it's absolutely ok for me to go, "Interesting. What's the story there? Are they slower or is there some other f…

Right, but what I meant was: the other tests that the article says are used for definitively proving discrimination are equally bad, and subject to the same objection. Just substituting “one standard deviation“ or “statistical significance“for “80%“ doesn’t fix the fundamental problem here, which is that there are unmeasured confounders.

Re: Algorithmic Monocultures in Hiring

#173

Post by mstewartgallus »

kenjackson wrote: post #105

I think this partially buries the lede: "As a single hiring vendor comes to dominate screening for an industry, it may be more likely that candidates are shut out." If we move to using just a small number of AI models to help do things like hiring, we will amplify biases and possibly completely lock out portions of the population. We need to be very careful when using AI systems to evaluate people in general -- not b…

"we will amplify biases and possibly completely lock out portions of the population."

A lot of the capitalists see that as a positive.

Re: Algorithmic Monocultures in Hiring

#174

Post by mstewartgallus »

slashdave wrote: post #135
kenjackson wrote: post #105

I think this partially buries the lede: "As a single hiring vendor comes to dominate screening for an industry, it may be more likely that candidates are shut out." If we move to using just a small number of AI models to help do things like hiring, we will amplify biases and possibly completely lock out portions of the population. We need to be very careful when using AI systems to evaluate people in general -- not b…

It is also illegal

capitalists have never cared about that

Re: Algorithmic Monocultures in Hiring

#175

Post by mstewartgallus »

sdellis wrote: post #166
adammarples wrote: post #139

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There are many other potential explanatory factors than your simple binary. Black people in America started in a very bad and difficult position, only a few generations ago, with huge racial discrimination, no money, and generational distrust of institutions. That is a factor that will affect what you see today without any current system of racial discrimination or inferiority.

If I hear you correctly, the lack of reparations toward Black people in America is more to blame for the discrepancy than systemic racism? Perhaps it could be both? I am getting downvoted because it's hard to admit that AI only reinforces the culture that it is trained on. It is the perfect technology to keep systemic racism in place, all while being the perfect scapegoat for lack of personal or corporate accountabil…

The failure of land reform in reconstruction really fucked things up a lot.

Re: Algorithmic Monocultures in Hiring

#176

Post by mstewartgallus »

ETH_start wrote: post #73

A racially disparate outcome is not evidence of racial bias.

Correlation does not imply causation but it is really curious how the USA has a history of settler-colonialism, slavery, segregation, eugenics, mass incarceration and imperialism. The USA and the tech industry also literally have edgelord internet Nazis in positions of power right now.

Re: Algorithmic Monocultures in Hiring

#177

Post by mstewartgallus »

jongjong wrote: post #129
zeroonetwothree wrote: post #115

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That’s the platform that gave them the data. I don’t think they claim it’s all the applications of this set of people.

I realise this but it's still incredible to think because that's about 22k applicants per company. Even if that's just part of each company's total hiring pipeline, it's clear; something's wrong. I don't know how long this study has been running but 22k is a lot of people, even over a year. These companies are too big. That's the problem.

Capitalism develops into monopolies pretty inevitably. Economies of scale just make monopolies more profitable. Monopolies also get in bed with the state and do dirty tricks to stamp out competition. But monopoly capitalism has been the case for over a 100 years now.
Post reply on HN