Work Reform

hideshow 1 child comment

[–] craftrabbit@lemmy.zip 15 points 2 months ago

omg such surprise.,...

parent

[–] Tollana1234567@lemmy.today 10 points 2 months ago*

not really surprised, as certain jobs industry will hire certain demographics over others like, any receptionist jobs , they will screen out any male names. Also besides that so many people have reported on other forums that AI effectively locked them out of the field altogether after graduation, hence why you see reviews of certain universities how terrible the education/job finding was.

[–] FiniteBanjo@feddit.online 3 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (13 children)

So their source that 73% of global businesses use AI, at some point in the hiring process, is a site called CPA Practice Advisor who source their claim from MyPerfectResume™ which honestly it sounds kind of bogus to me.

Can that many people really be this stupid?

hideshow 13 child comments

[–] lukstru@piefed.social 8 points 2 months ago

Yes, and even more can be lazy with annoying processes where they dont see the direct consequences oft their actions when they trust the system

parent

[–] WhoIzDisIz@lemmy.today 4 points 2 months ago (8 children)

If it's the cheapest modus operandi the bean counters can find to accomplish the task, you bet they can.

hideshow 8 child comments

parent

[–] FiniteBanjo@feddit.online -5 points 2 months ago* (7 children)

Theres nothing cheap about hundreds of discrimination lawsuits, lmao.

AI racial bias is not a new thing.

hideshow 7 child comments

parent

[–] WhoIzDisIz@lemmy.today 9 points 2 months ago (6 children)

They're outsourcing the logic to the AI provider, so they can pass the buck and proclaim innocence - in some cases it's even likely true.

hideshow 6 child comments

parent

[–] FiniteBanjo@feddit.online 1 point 2 months ago (5 children)

In California, one such lawsuit was allowed to continhe by a judge. Proclaming innocence doesn't work when we have all known about AI racial bias and hallucinations for many years, we can reasonably show that they in all likelihood did know the same way a musician can prove the thief heard their song in a copyright case.

hideshow 5 child comments

parent

[–] WhoIzDisIz@lemmy.today 0 points 2 months ago (4 children)

Glad to see that, but a single example does not a reliable precedent make — particularly under the current grip of the judicial system by conservatives.

hideshow 4 child comments

parent

[–] FiniteBanjo@feddit.online 0 points 2 months ago* (3 children)

AI being new means you won't have precedent going back 20 years, mate. As I mentioned there is already precedent for proving the defendant was aware of the problematic behavior or risks due to such information being publicly available and commonly discussed.

Even if what you say is true and a bunch of conservative trump appointee hacks are fucking the judicial process up: you can't win them all and there are going to be metric assloads of these cases.

hideshow 3 child comments

parent

[–] WhoIzDisIz@lemmy.today 1 point 2 months ago (2 children)

...we have all known about AI racial bias and hallucinations for many years...

vs

AI being new...

Which is it?

What I said is demonstrably true, and - unless Thomas & Alito are dumb enough to stick things out past the current administration's ability to replace them - we are going to be suffering the effects of the stacked Supreme Court having the final word for quite some time.

hideshow 2 child comments

parent

[–] FiniteBanjo@feddit.online -2 points 2 months ago* (1 child)

LLMs and even the other large dataset trained machine learning chatbots which directly preceded them going back over a decade have always displayed racial bias.

Companies using that technology to sort applicants hasn't been widespread for more than a couple of years.

What a bad faith question. Next time you pretend to be this stupid at least consider having some capability of observing the world you live in.

parent

hideshow 1 child comment

[–] WhoIzDisIz@lemmy.today 1 point 2 months ago*

My, what an arrogant, assuming condescension. Maybe go out and touch grass. I'd shoot you down further, but I'm not as childish as you so I know not to bother wasting my time further. Maybe we'll talk when you outgrow your teenage-level testosterone-driven mentality. For now, blocked.