Why do you think an AI is in the position to know what makes a qualified individual? It probably rejects every resume it views as not fitting its standard template. Wanting to hire the next Einstein? Well too bad, he’s neurodivergent and he doesn’t write a resume the way the AI wants him to. Also, he has an “ethnic” name so that’s an automatic rejection.
There’s no template that is looked for in my company’s case. And it’s not black and white, accept/reject, rather it’s trained to score applicants on a predefined set of criteria set by my company. It’s used as a tool to basically sort the resumes from strongest to weakest, most applicable to least. Depending on how many resumes are received, all of them might still be reviewed by a human. We don’t and never have used a candidate’s name at any point in the review process.
“Neurodivergent” had to have been a front runner for 2024 word of the year.
Do you seriously believe that human review of a neurodivergent person’s strangely composed resume is going to be any better? Have you ever sat down with a stack of resumes in your life? Managers will toss them in seconds without even reading them in full - at least AI will do that.
I think you’re just using neurodivergence as a way to take your miserably uninformed assumptions about how AI application review works, and legitimize them as a discrimination issue.
I seriously believe a human can view a non-standard resume and make a better judgment about it than a machine. And yes, I have sat down with a stack of resumes. I used to own my own company. That’s exactly how I know someone with a resume that doesn’t fit the traditional template an AI might care about, especially if they have a flair for design, would get my attention as a good candidate.
I also wouldn’t care if their name was Shonda or Muhammad. AIs, on the other hand, reject people with “ethnic” names.
Do you think there’s enough information in the application to decide? If that information is there, then you shouldn’t categorically assume AI is being racist against Einstein. Personal review of resumes is notoriously rife with bias - you actually might want to consider that AI could be an improvement. The guy with the ethnic name might get a high AI score and actually get a second look. You don’t know the AI performs worse than humans in the things you care about. Be real: you have no information about that at all.
Any comparison with how humans do with the same resumes in that article? Hm… nope.
The AI models are racist because they are trained on racist human generated decision sets. At least AI can be reprogrammed. Your own article concludes that this research should be used to improve AI.
Either it’s acceptable, which is why you’re defending it, or it’s not acceptable, in which case you have no reason to defend it.
I’m assuming you’re not just saying things in order to practice your typing, so all I can think is that you think “less racist than a human but still racist” as the status quo is acceptable.
But if you don’t think it’s acceptable, please explain why you’re defending it.
The people downvoting you refuse to recognize one simple fact: employers are absolutely drowning in unqualified applications for jobs. People completely ignore the requirements and apply anyway, or even install browser extensions that automatically fill out applications by the dozen. But oh! How dare the employer do anything but read all 600 applications and carefully read between the lines to consider applicants who have no experience but want a ‘career change!’ How dare they try to bin the worst 300 automatically!
In Japan, the culture around this is very different. People don’t apply for things unless they are highly qualified and meet the specific requirements. People tend to switch jobs less often and are more intentional about it. In the US it’s “I’m unemployed, time to spam.” This is despite the fact that for ever and ever, experts have been telling people “send fewer applications to more targeted jobs.” I’m sure everyone thinks they are doing this, but believe me, as a collective - no one else is.
What’s the issue here? It’s literally making it easier to weed out unqualified individuals.
Why do you think an AI is in the position to know what makes a qualified individual? It probably rejects every resume it views as not fitting its standard template. Wanting to hire the next Einstein? Well too bad, he’s neurodivergent and he doesn’t write a resume the way the AI wants him to. Also, he has an “ethnic” name so that’s an automatic rejection.
There’s no template that is looked for in my company’s case. And it’s not black and white, accept/reject, rather it’s trained to score applicants on a predefined set of criteria set by my company. It’s used as a tool to basically sort the resumes from strongest to weakest, most applicable to least. Depending on how many resumes are received, all of them might still be reviewed by a human. We don’t and never have used a candidate’s name at any point in the review process.
“Neurodivergent” had to have been a front runner for 2024 word of the year.
Are you suggesting that autism and ADHD are not real conditions?
Do you seriously believe that human review of a neurodivergent person’s strangely composed resume is going to be any better? Have you ever sat down with a stack of resumes in your life? Managers will toss them in seconds without even reading them in full - at least AI will do that.
I think you’re just using neurodivergence as a way to take your miserably uninformed assumptions about how AI application review works, and legitimize them as a discrimination issue.
You didn’t answer my question.
ADHD and Autism are real conditions.
Now answer every point I made.
I seriously believe a human can view a non-standard resume and make a better judgment about it than a machine. And yes, I have sat down with a stack of resumes. I used to own my own company. That’s exactly how I know someone with a resume that doesn’t fit the traditional template an AI might care about, especially if they have a flair for design, would get my attention as a good candidate.
I also wouldn’t care if their name was Shonda or Muhammad. AIs, on the other hand, reject people with “ethnic” names.
Happy now?
What is this “traditional template” you keep referring to?
Not even sure why you’d even ask this as I never said any such thing. Of course ADHD and autism are real conditions.
I quoted why I asked it. It sure sounds like you’re saying it’s just a meaningless buzzword.
You love to assume.
Inferring is not the same as assuming.
Do you think there’s enough information in the application to decide? If that information is there, then you shouldn’t categorically assume AI is being racist against Einstein. Personal review of resumes is notoriously rife with bias - you actually might want to consider that AI could be an improvement. The guy with the ethnic name might get a high AI score and actually get a second look. You don’t know the AI performs worse than humans in the things you care about. Be real: you have no information about that at all.
Believe it or not, we already know a lot of information about this issue. It’s just that no one gives a shit.
https://www.washington.edu/news/2024/10/31/ai-bias-resume-screening-race-gender/
You clearly don’t or you would have looked it up first.
Any comparison with how humans do with the same resumes in that article? Hm… nope.
The AI models are racist because they are trained on racist human generated decision sets. At least AI can be reprogrammed. Your own article concludes that this research should be used to improve AI.
What did I say above?
But I’m not sure why you think “less racist than a racist human but still racist” as the current status quo is acceptable.
Nice attempt to put those words in my mouth. Here’s what I think less racist than a human is: less racist than a human.
Either it’s acceptable, which is why you’re defending it, or it’s not acceptable, in which case you have no reason to defend it.
I’m assuming you’re not just saying things in order to practice your typing, so all I can think is that you think “less racist than a human but still racist” as the status quo is acceptable.
But if you don’t think it’s acceptable, please explain why you’re defending it.
Because then the applicant uses AI to apply for the job, and it’s just AI all the way down
Have you never heard of a “career change”?
Yes, though no one is obligated to help with one. Employers generally want directly relevant experience.
A career change takes more than cold online applications. It’s a situation where you need to network and take advantage take of any ins you can.
The people downvoting you refuse to recognize one simple fact: employers are absolutely drowning in unqualified applications for jobs. People completely ignore the requirements and apply anyway, or even install browser extensions that automatically fill out applications by the dozen. But oh! How dare the employer do anything but read all 600 applications and carefully read between the lines to consider applicants who have no experience but want a ‘career change!’ How dare they try to bin the worst 300 automatically!
In Japan, the culture around this is very different. People don’t apply for things unless they are highly qualified and meet the specific requirements. People tend to switch jobs less often and are more intentional about it. In the US it’s “I’m unemployed, time to spam.” This is despite the fact that for ever and ever, experts have been telling people “send fewer applications to more targeted jobs.” I’m sure everyone thinks they are doing this, but believe me, as a collective - no one else is.