3 ms·
If a company wants to stay in business, the legal risk of AI bots firing people is probably not worth the cost savings. Until that changes, I don't think there'
by autobodie 1y ago
If a company wants to stay in business, the legal risk of AI bots firing people is probably not worth the cost savings. Until that changes, I don't think there's much to discuss, but that may not be long given the way things are going.
- zoechi 1y agoThey don't have to admit that the decision was made by AI. One low-wage worker in HR can be the spokesperson who sells it as his decision.
- autobodie 1y agoNo law specifically requires more than a coin flip, but firing people because some rando in HR "decided" without justification or documentation of cause can be risky.
- rsynnott 1y agoSo the thing about people who enforce laws is, they're not _completely_ stupid. Dodgy companies will pretty much always attempt to hide the fact that they're breaking the law; nothing new there.
- GianFabien 1y agoDon't know about HR AI-bots firing workers. But only last week there was a news segment about HR AI-bots doing the first level interviewing via video-calls. Which is intriguing since there have been some reports previously about job applicants using AI to enhance their interviews, especially for remote jobs. Could lead to an AI-vs-AI showdown. Of course, I take such reports with a grain of salt, because I often wonder whether such news items are self-serving product promotions in disguise.
- singron 1y agoI don't think AI bots will make unilateral decisions about firing the same way a line manager typically won't. E.g. a manager will typically make a recommendation to a director and/or HR who will than review and approve the final action. A smart director should investigate themselves and might reassign the IC to another manager or in rare cases fire the manager instead (e.g. if they suspect retaliation).