4 ms·

The definition of algorithm is: > a process or set of rules to be followed in calculations or other problem-solving operations, especially by a computer. So y

by gretch 4y ago

The definition of algorithm is: > a process or set of rules to be followed in calculations or other problem-solving operations, especially by a computer. So yeah, I would hope that an algorithm was used. As opposed to what? "I like that guy more than the other guy". You seem to have the interpretation that some guy in finance wrote a script, it output some employee IDs, and then no one checked the output before laying them all off, as if slaves to the machine. Do you really believe that?

jedberg 4y ago
First off, you know that "used an algorithm" in modern parlance means "was done by AI without human intervention". And based on that, absolutely I think Google did that. They run everything with data and statistics without humans. That's how they are so efficient. This is backed up by the fact that the managers who work there were simply told who they were losing and had no input into the process, and aren't even aware of who has been let go yet.
- enneff 4y ago
  I’ve worked at Google for a long time and I assure you the chances of some AI being involved in the selection process for these layoffs is very close to zero. Don’t be so confident in something you apparently know so little about.
  - jedberg 4y ago
    What kind of tools do you think the people analytics team builds? [0] I know some people who used to be on the team. Given that they built analytics to automatically sort resumes, automatically identify retention risks, and automatically set salaries, it wouldn't surprise me that they had developed a system to determine layoffs. Google isn't the only company that does it. It's not like it's unique to Google or anything. But yes, I absolutely believe that Google used an AI to determine the layoffs, at least to inform them if nothing else. [0] https://d3.harvard.edu/platform-digit/submission/people-analytics-at-google-using-data-to-make-google-a-great-place-to-work/ https://d3.harvard.edu/platform-digit/submission/people-anal...
    - enneff 4y ago
      In the post I replied to you said “without human intervention” and now you’re saying “at least to inform”. Can’t even stay consistent within this thread? Again you are basing your assumptions on pretty much nothing. (Fwiw the page you linked has nothing to do with AI.)
- bagacrap 4y ago
  I think this is a ridiculous take. Just because Google uses algorithms to handle millions of queries without human intervention does not mean they use algorithm in HR. Do you also believe Google's hiring process is devoid of human intervention? Managers were not informed because there are so many of them at Google that it would have leaked long before the process was over. The process was conducted manually by 750 directors and VPs.
  - jedberg 4y ago
    > Do you also believe Google's hiring process is devoid of human intervention? No, of course not. But that doesn't say anything about their firing process. Also they brag about their people analytics team and how they manage their people with the same automation that they manage other parts of the business. So it's not that ridiculous of a take. Especially when you consider how much automation they use in the parts of their business that should use humans, like customer service.

by gretch 4y ago

jedberg 4y ago

First off, you know that "used an algorithm" in modern parlance means "was done by AI without human intervention". And based on that, absolutely I think Google did that. They run everything with data and statistics without humans. That's how they are so efficient. This is backed up by the fact that the managers who work there were simply told who they were losing and had no input into the process, and aren't even aware of who has been let go yet.

enneff 4y ago
I’ve worked at Google for a long time and I assure you the chances of some AI being involved in the selection process for these layoffs is very close to zero. Don’t be so confident in something you apparently know so little about.
- jedberg 4y ago
  What kind of tools do you think the people analytics team builds? [0] I know some people who used to be on the team. Given that they built analytics to automatically sort resumes, automatically identify retention risks, and automatically set salaries, it wouldn't surprise me that they had developed a system to determine layoffs. Google isn't the only company that does it. It's not like it's unique to Google or anything. But yes, I absolutely believe that Google used an AI to determine the layoffs, at least to inform them if nothing else. [0] https://d3.harvard.edu/platform-digit/submission/people-analytics-at-google-using-data-to-make-google-a-great-place-to-work/ https://d3.harvard.edu/platform-digit/submission/people-anal...
  - enneff 4y ago
    In the post I replied to you said “without human intervention” and now you’re saying “at least to inform”. Can’t even stay consistent within this thread? Again you are basing your assumptions on pretty much nothing. (Fwiw the page you linked has nothing to do with AI.)
bagacrap 4y ago
I think this is a ridiculous take. Just because Google uses algorithms to handle millions of queries without human intervention does not mean they use algorithm in HR. Do you also believe Google's hiring process is devoid of human intervention? Managers were not informed because there are so many of them at Google that it would have leaked long before the process was over. The process was conducted manually by 750 directors and VPs.
- jedberg 4y ago
  > Do you also believe Google's hiring process is devoid of human intervention? No, of course not. But that doesn't say anything about their firing process. Also they brag about their people analytics team and how they manage their people with the same automation that they manage other parts of the business. So it's not that ridiculous of a take. Especially when you consider how much automation they use in the parts of their business that should use humans, like customer service.