4 ms·

Most probably unusable in the UK, as the AI won't be able to explain why it rejected a candidate ("why did you score them low for team working?") and the candid

Most probably unusable in the UK, as the AI won't be able to explain why it rejected a candidate ("why did you score them low for team working?") and the candidate will take the employer to the cleaners. God only knows what hidden variables it'll start discovering and exploiting. My guess is it'll reinforce well-known prejudices.

mattlondon 7y ago
I think also it is against the Data Protection Act 2018 (? - IANAL): 49 Right not to be subject to automated decision-making ..(1) A controller may not take a significant decision based solely on automated processing unless that decision is required or authorised by law. ..(2) A decision is a “significant decision” for the purpose of this section if, in relation to a data subject, it— ....(a)produces an adverse legal effect concerning the data subject, or ....(b)significantly affects the data subject. I'd say that being rejected automatically for a job before being seen by a human would be a significant decision. https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2018/12/pdfs/ukpga_20180012_en.pdf https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2018/12/pdfs/ukpga_2018...
johnnycab 7y ago
It will be hard to predict what will be considered unusable post-brexit. Although, I don't know how an algorithm will be able to adhere to a mish-mash of job requirements laid down by Dom Cummings for running the government, which involves assorted wierdos juxtaposed with data scientists and Y-Combinator alumni. However, if people like Uri Geller keep applying, it will at least keep the HR bods in gravy.
retrac 7y ago
I'm quite hard of hearing. I wonder what the algorithm's analysis of "facial expressions and the tonality of the job applicant's voice" would supposedly reveal about me. Probably something actionable under the nondiscrimination laws here, thankfully.
- bencollier49 7y ago
  "I didn't like the look of him" certainly isn't an acceptable answer, and it's literally the answer in this case, always.

mattlondon 7y ago

I think also it is against the Data Protection Act 2018 (? - IANAL): 49 Right not to be subject to automated decision-making ..(1) A controller may not take a significant decision based solely on automated processing unless that decision is required or authorised by law. ..(2) A decision is a “significant decision” for the purpose of this section if, in relation to a data subject, it— ....(a)produces an adverse legal effect concerning the data subject, or ....(b)significantly affects the data subject. I'd say that being rejected automatically for a job before being seen by a human would be a significant decision. https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2018/12/pdfs/ukpga_20180012_en.pdf https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2018/12/pdfs/ukpga_2018...

johnnycab 7y ago

It will be hard to predict what will be considered unusable post-brexit. Although, I don't know how an algorithm will be able to adhere to a mish-mash of job requirements laid down by Dom Cummings for running the government, which involves assorted wierdos juxtaposed with data scientists and Y-Combinator alumni. However, if people like Uri Geller keep applying, it will at least keep the HR bods in gravy.

retrac 7y ago

I'm quite hard of hearing. I wonder what the algorithm's analysis of "facial expressions and the tonality of the job applicant's voice" would supposedly reveal about me. Probably something actionable under the nondiscrimination laws here, thankfully.

bencollier49 7y ago
"I didn't like the look of him" certainly isn't an acceptable answer, and it's literally the answer in this case, always.