3 ms·
Interesting, from the site: “applications, such as a CV-scanning tool that ranks job applicants, are subject to specific legal requirement” This is a continua
by shon 3y ago
Interesting, from the site:
“applications, such as a CV-scanning tool that ranks job applicants, are subject to specific legal requirement”
This is a continuation of EU logic first seen in GDPR around what that law calls “automated decision making”.
All I can say is that GDPR hasn’t had a good effect. Partly because It’s not well written from a technical perspective.
GDPR demands explainable and auditable automation. Non-deterministic AI systems make this difficult or impossible with current tech. So to be “compliant”, vendors dumb-down their software to use explainable methods and often inferior hiring decisions are made because users have to operate on untenable amounts of data using basic sorts. So the Talent Acquisition team end up structuring the hiring process around “disqualifers” such as resume gaps, education requirements, pre-interview qualification tests, etc.
It reminds me of an old recruiting joke:
“Recruiter: You said you only wanted to interview the 5 best applicants but we are getting so many applicants we don’t know where to start.
Hiring Manager: OK, first, I only hire lucky people. Print out all of the resumes and throw away every other one.”
Interestingly, if this process is done randomly without reviewing the resume, it’s considered legal.
- makeitdouble 3y agoIt comes down to how you prove your blackbox is better than a biased but auditable (and fixable) process. Even doing a few dozen audits of the AI run and coming up with better results, how can you assume these results will be consistent across thousands of resumes that will be blindly scanned ? Usually stats could be applied, except as it's a black box, can we assume that behavior will have cobsistency ? (a dumb example: if the AI is somewhat influenced by dates, decision will drastically change as time goes by)