3 ms·
There's several ways of something not being causal. You're assuming here that there's a reliable proxy variable (eg., wealth -> good education -> "Jared") -- wh
by mjburgess 4y ago
There's several ways of something not being causal. You're assuming here that there's a reliable proxy variable (eg., wealth -> good education -> "Jared") -- which is unlikely to be the case. These proxies will disappear: poorer people will adopt those baby names.
Whilst, yes, everything else being equal some non-zero knowledge of reliable proxies is useful. But in a hiring process, not everything is equal. You can, eg., trivially examine the candidate.
its trivial to get actually relevant data to hiring, making "AI" dangerously useless. Is substitutes a high-quality process (measurements of the actual applicants) for a low-quality process (random statistical properties of aggregates of existing employees).
The story of "AI" over the last decade, it must be said.
- eru 4y agoWeirdly enough, (poorer) people don't seem to be very good at picking names that signal success. So that proxy is pretty good. If you are poor and want to give your child a name to signal success, you'd need to look at the names rich people are giving their kids right now. In practice at most we are seeing poor people imitating the past naming practices of rich people. (Of course, that's just a generalisation. Individual people make their individual choices.)