Notes on AI Bias

I swear, when someone starts building autonomous killer robots, the first set of concerned articles will probably be asking whether robots were properly trained to target all genders and races with equal accuracy. This is not a sensible way to approach AI ethics.

>It was recently reported that Amazon had tried building a machine learning system to screen resumés for recruitment. Since Amazon’s current employee base skews male, the examples of ‘successful hires’ also, mechanistically, skewed male and so, therefore, did this system’s selection of resumés.

There is nothing "mechanistic" about this. It depends on how you select sample resumes and how you split them between "good" and "bad" labels.

I worked on a similar thing as an "encouraged" side-project at a certain company. Except I realized from day 1 that using AI on resumes is a bad idea and aimed to show this with data. My model was aiming to detect people who will quit or get fired within first 6 month (with the intent of lowering them in priority for interviews, supposedly). It miraculously achieved 85% accuracy... by figuring out how to detect summer interns.

Framing this problem as "bias" and especially hyper-focusing everyone's attention on diversity aspect of it is extremely irresponsible. (I'm not saying that's what the author is doing, but that's definitely what's being done at large.) Fundamentally, there are significant higher-level problems with using statistical ML models for things like hiring or crime prediction.

Going by the details of the Reuters story and several others, it appears that what actually happened was a training/task mismatch. Amazon wanted an algorithm to do resume discovery, which recruiters would run and get quality predictions as they viewed resumes. But they trained it on resume results, giving it past resumes which had been submitted to Amazon and telling it to seek similar resumes. None of the stories make it clear if there even was negative training data; it looks like the tool was simply told to compute degree-of-similarity to past inputs, and possibly told to prioritize resumes which were ultimately hired.

As a result, the tool was trying to convert a relatively gender-neutral pool (resumes found online) to a skewed one (Amazon applicant resumes), and did so by weighting gendered terms. It also seems to have underweighted technical terms, failing to appreciate them as mandatory or strictly position-specific.

The developers were sufficiently aware of that to catch and correct the known gender biases (e.g. devaluing women's colleges or the literal word "women's"), but were scared there were other uncaught biases. And the results were apparently terrible all around, so the tool was scrapped. Which is pretty much what you'd expect from something trained on exclusively positive, sample-biased examples. The story has been seriously distorted, but the real plan also seems terrible...

As far as I can tell from later stories (e.g. 1, 2), what Amazon actually did was build a tool to show recruiters 'quality' predictions for all resumes, for instance as they scrolled LinkedIn. But they trained it on resumes submitted to Amazon for various positions, possibly also adding weight to resumes which produced hires.

In which case the problem is painfully obvious; the system effectively had no negative training data, and its positive examples (submitted resumes) didn't actually match the desired output (qualified resumes). It was computing degree of similarity between a gender-neutral-ish pool (resumes posted online) and a gender-skewed pool (resumes submitted to Amazon), and tried to make that conversion with whatever data was available - like devaluing resumes that mentioned women's colleges. (This wasn't just a proxy-variable thing, the model essentially learned to weight on gender.) Amazon's team apparently caught this issue and did the usual things like blinding on those words. But they were scared of uncaught factors; reading between the lines, they were unable to "detrain" biases like neural nets do because their dataset and task didn't match.

Ultimately, the tool was apparently scrapped because it made selections "almost at random". Which, again, isn't exactly surprising in light of the absolutely bonkers choice of training examples.

[1] https://www.aclu.org/blog/womens-rights/womens-rights-workpl...

[2] https://www.ml.cmu.edu/news/news-archive/2018/october/amazon...

This really is quite impressive. It's rare for humans to do worse than random guessing on tasks, and they almost never do much worse. There's something almost charming about the ability of AI to put real effort into actively avoiding correct answers.