Showing posts with label developers. Show all posts
Showing posts with label developers. Show all posts

Friday, February 4, 2022

Where Automated Job Interviews Fall Short; Harvard Business Review (HBR), January 27, 2022

Zahira Jaser, Dimitra Petrakaki, Rachel Starr, and Ernesto Oyarbide-Magaña, Harvard Business Review (HBR) ; Where Automated Job Interviews Fall Short

"The use of artificial intelligence in HR processes is a new, and likely unstoppable, trend. In recruitment, up to 86% of employers use job interviews mediated by technology, a growing portion of which are automated video interviews (AVIs).

AVIs involve job candidates being interviewed by an artificial intelligence, which requires them to record themselves on an interview platform, answering questions under time pressure. The video is then submitted through the AI developer platform, which processes the data of the candidate — this can be visual (e.g. smiles), verbal (e.g. key words used), and/or vocal (e.g. the tone of voice). In some cases, the platform then passes a report with an interpretation of the job candidate’s performance to the employer.

The technologies used for these videos present issues in reliably capturing a candidate’s characteristics. There is also strong evidence that these technologies can contain bias that can exclude some categories of job-seekers. The Berkeley Haas Center for Equity, Gender, and Leadership reports that 44% of AI systems are embedded with gender bias, with about 26% displaying both gender and race bias. For example, facial recognition algorithms have a 35% higher detection error for recognizing the gender of women of color, compared to men with lighter skin.

But as developers work to remove biases and increase reliability, we still know very little on how AVIs (or other types of interviews involving artificial intelligence) are experienced by different categories of job candidates themselves, and how these experiences affect them, this is where our research focused. Without this knowledge, employers and managers can’t fully understand the impact these technologies are having on their talent pool or on different group of workers (e.g., age, ethnicity, and social background). As a result, organizations are ill-equipped to discern whether the platforms they turn to are truly helping them hire candidates that align with their goals. We seek to explore whether employers are alienating promising candidates — and potentially entire categories of job seekers by default — because of varying experiences of the technology."

Saturday, March 3, 2018

Who needs ethics anyway? – Chips with Everything podcast; Guardian, March 2, 2018

[Podcast] Presented by  and produced by Guardian; 

 Who needs ethics anyway? – Chips with Everything podcast


"Technology companies seem to have a bad reputation at the moment. Whether through honest mistakes or more intentional oversights, the likes of Apple, Facebook, Google and Twitter have created distrust among consumers.

But as technology develops, and as we hand over more control to artificial intelligence and machines, it becomes difficult for developers to foresee the negative consequences or side-effects that might arise.
In October 2017, the AI company DeepMind, a subsidiary of Google, created an ethics group made up of employees and external experts called DeepMind Ethics & Society.
But are these groups any more than a PR strategy? And how can we train technology students to preempt an ethical disaster before they enter the workforce?
To discuss these issues, Jordan Erica Webber is joined by Dr Mariarosaria Taddeoof the Oxford Internet Institute, Prof Laura Norén of NYU and student Kandrea Wade."