Interesting paper about the inequities in algorithmic hiring tools

Hey y’all,

I came across the paper “Algorithmic Monocultures in Hiring” from Stanford yesterday. I’ve already read the blog and am making my way through the research paper now. So far it’s a really interesting read about the negative impacts of AI on equitable access to jobs. Would love to hear other’s responses to it!

-Danica

1 Like

Hey @dshipley2 sorry it took me so long to get back to this - I’ve been on the road. This paper is awesome and I’m trying to get the authors to do a TDE and talk it over with us. I am so grateful for all the amazing resources you share on this forum :slight_smile:

1 Like

That’d be awesome! I know there’s been lawsuits already with candidates suing ATS (applicant tracking system) vendors because they’re being consistently rejected when applying. And there’s emerging laws around this too. I read in another article (The AI Hiring Screen Deserves Scrutiny) highlighting emerging legislation that’s seeking to hold employers liable for biased outcomes in AI hiring tools they’re deploying. So it’s an interesting space because AI is being used by candidates and talent acquisition team’s are getting overwhelmed by job applications that it’s hard to manage, and are looking to AI tools to assist in efficiently managing that flow. But if they aren’t being transparent about the usage of these tools, understand them, and monitoring the potential for biases; the organization can get in trouble. Also good context to note that talent acquisition teams can often be understaffed or rely heavily on contractors due to the ups and downs of in hiring within organizations. So I believe that plays a role into why this is space where AI is being applied within HR.

At the same time, I also came across another article (90 Percent of Job Platforms Sell User Data, Study Finds), that leaves me just just feeling exhausted by how vulnerable our data and lives are even within the scope of just trying to apply to jobs.

Anyways, happy Friday!

1 Like

Wow! :exploding_head: I assumed that to some degree this was true, but 90% is so so high. OMG. We are definitely going to do a TDE on this. Thanks @dshipley2