4 ms·

If one gender really did provide more 'value once hired', would it be reasonable for the AI to favour them?

lsiebert 5y ago
the AI is just a product of it's inputs, how it's used, and whether it violates discrimination laws, are totally up to the users.
- delusional 5y ago
  Sort of, but we have to be careful not the wash the hands of people all too willing to discard responsibility. It's correct to say "it's just statistics on data" but it also provides cover to the processes that use it. "How can you be against hiring the best person for the job" the argument goes, completely ignoring that the "best" isn't scientifically defined, and includes the same sexist biases we were trying to get rid of.
  - yjftsjthsd-h 5y ago
    I read that as specifically saying that the ethical and legal responsibility is entirely on the people. (i.e. I think you're agreeing with the comment you're replying to)
    - lsiebert 5y ago
      Yes, sorry for the lack of clarity. Users shouldn't blame the machine when they control every aspect of it and how it's used. It's on you as a user to understand your tools and data.
JaumeGreen 5y ago
Not necesarily, because it could have given more value for the wrong reasons. Imagine a misoginistic, but horny, boss, that only hires good working ugly men and hot dumb women, specifically looking for these traits in order to have a "playing" field. If the AI got in here it would be constrained to the same parameters, af if it was looking for good workers of any gender it would prefer men. An the thing is that although this boss is part of history (we hope) the influence they had on the workforce at large was enormous, and it'll be a long time before this is reversed. And this without taking into account all the coworkers that could hinder your job because you are not part of their cadre (gender, football club, fortnite clan, whatever). We really should exepriment with equality, or even the opossite extreme, before considering one gender "superior" than another for a given role. And even then there would be exceptions.
tialaramex 5y ago
How much more value? Suppose men were providing $10 in additional value over the time they work for you. That's barely even worth a Starbucks gift card, the sort of thing you probably give away to people who guess the number of marbles in a jar at a company mandatory fun event. You definitely shouldn't hire James rather than Deborah because of an average $10 gender difference unless they are literally interchangeable. If their sole distinguishing feature was somehow that Deborah's smile was nicer, or James' laugh was more annoying, that's probably still enough difference to out-weigh this $10 lifetime value. And the reality is your candidates just aren't that similar. Deborah's six years experience in a similar role while James is applying with no relevant background should not lead to the conclusion that all that matters is the average "value once hired" for James will be higher based on gender averages. Now, suppose women are providing $10M in additional value. Well, I think we'd have noticed something that dramatic by now right? "Gee, my start-up with five women broke even in the first six weeks because of how awesome women are". So we can rule that sort of large figure out as implausible. I think a discussion about whether it's reasonable needs to take the magnitude of the difference into consideration, which would first mean (if you wanted to do this) finding out for sure how large that difference even is. My guess is, if you did this, you get a very small answer and so then the discussion is really easy: No. But before you could do that, you'd need to have a decent objective measurement of this "value once hired", and that part is far harder so it won't get done.
- newsclues 5y ago
  If you are in a gunfight, would you rather have a slight advantage? You also need to consider the risks and circumstances, sometimes you want every tiny edge possible.
  - tialaramex 5y ago
    Sure, you spend as long as you like figuring out how best to achieve the slight advantage, meanwhile I shoot you in the head. Analysis paralysis, figuring out what to do costs time and time is expensive so you should avoid this unless you've got a good reason to expect it actually matters and you believe you can actually do it correctly.
newsclues 5y ago
Yes, because of the AI is picking my brain surgeon, I want the best person, and I’m absolutely opposed to any equity, just raw talent and merit when it comes to someone operating on my brain again.
vidarh 5y ago
In this instance most societies have decided that discrimination by gender is a negative for society irrespective of whether or not you can come up with a metric that gives one gender a higher value to the company, so no. But it would still be important to understand how the AI would assign value because it would matter to ensure that it does not apply criteria that are not legal. At the same time, what this seems to suggest is also that purely judging by other factors in resumes might effectively act as a proxy for directly judging by gender. As such the more interesting question to me is whether that means that deciding based on such factors might put employers at risk of claims of gender discrimination.

the AI is just a product of it's inputs, how it's used, and whether it violates discrimination laws, are totally up to the users.

delusional 5y ago
Sort of, but we have to be careful not the wash the hands of people all too willing to discard responsibility. It's correct to say "it's just statistics on data" but it also provides cover to the processes that use it. "How can you be against hiring the best person for the job" the argument goes, completely ignoring that the "best" isn't scientifically defined, and includes the same sexist biases we were trying to get rid of.
- yjftsjthsd-h 5y ago
  I read that as specifically saying that the ethical and legal responsibility is entirely on the people. (i.e. I think you're agreeing with the comment you're replying to)
  - lsiebert 5y ago
    Yes, sorry for the lack of clarity. Users shouldn't blame the machine when they control every aspect of it and how it's used. It's on you as a user to understand your tools and data.

JaumeGreen 5y ago

Not necesarily, because it could have given more value for the wrong reasons. Imagine a misoginistic, but horny, boss, that only hires good working ugly men and hot dumb women, specifically looking for these traits in order to have a "playing" field. If the AI got in here it would be constrained to the same parameters, af if it was looking for good workers of any gender it would prefer men. An the thing is that although this boss is part of history (we hope) the influence they had on the workforce at large was enormous, and it'll be a long time before this is reversed. And this without taking into account all the coworkers that could hinder your job because you are not part of their cadre (gender, football club, fortnite clan, whatever). We really should exepriment with equality, or even the opossite extreme, before considering one gender "superior" than another for a given role. And even then there would be exceptions.

tialaramex 5y ago

How much more value? Suppose men were providing $10 in additional value over the time they work for you. That's barely even worth a Starbucks gift card, the sort of thing you probably give away to people who guess the number of marbles in a jar at a company mandatory fun event. You definitely shouldn't hire James rather than Deborah because of an average $10 gender difference unless they are literally interchangeable. If their sole distinguishing feature was somehow that Deborah's smile was nicer, or James' laugh was more annoying, that's probably still enough difference to out-weigh this $10 lifetime value. And the reality is your candidates just aren't that similar. Deborah's six years experience in a similar role while James is applying with no relevant background should not lead to the conclusion that all that matters is the average "value once hired" for James will be higher based on gender averages. Now, suppose women are providing $10M in additional value. Well, I think we'd have noticed something that dramatic by now right? "Gee, my start-up with five women broke even in the first six weeks because of how awesome women are". So we can rule that sort of large figure out as implausible. I think a discussion about whether it's reasonable needs to take the magnitude of the difference into consideration, which would first mean (if you wanted to do this) finding out for sure how large that difference even is. My guess is, if you did this, you get a very small answer and so then the discussion is really easy: No. But before you could do that, you'd need to have a decent objective measurement of this "value once hired", and that part is far harder so it won't get done.

newsclues 5y ago
If you are in a gunfight, would you rather have a slight advantage? You also need to consider the risks and circumstances, sometimes you want every tiny edge possible.
- tialaramex 5y ago
  Sure, you spend as long as you like figuring out how best to achieve the slight advantage, meanwhile I shoot you in the head. Analysis paralysis, figuring out what to do costs time and time is expensive so you should avoid this unless you've got a good reason to expect it actually matters and you believe you can actually do it correctly.

newsclues 5y ago

Yes, because of the AI is picking my brain surgeon, I want the best person, and I’m absolutely opposed to any equity, just raw talent and merit when it comes to someone operating on my brain again.

vidarh 5y ago

In this instance most societies have decided that discrimination by gender is a negative for society irrespective of whether or not you can come up with a metric that gives one gender a higher value to the company, so no. But it would still be important to understand how the AI would assign value because it would matter to ensure that it does not apply criteria that are not legal. At the same time, what this seems to suggest is also that purely judging by other factors in resumes might effectively act as a proxy for directly judging by gender. As such the more interesting question to me is whether that means that deciding based on such factors might put employers at risk of claims of gender discrimination.