[gjm11]

How much would you bet that human interviewers' opinions of a candidate after a video interview wouldn't be affected if they were visibly in a room full of books? Or if they wore glasses, or had a painting hanging on the wall, or the various other things the researchers found made a difference to the AI's assessment?

To be clear, I am super-skeptical about the ability of AI systems to do a good job of judging an interviewee's personality from a short video clip. But (1) this seems obviously to be a really hard problem, and one that couldn't even have been attempted in 1970, and (2) I am also pretty skeptical about the ability of human interviewers to do it.

[csmpltn]

> "But (1) this seems obviously to be a really hard problem, and one that couldn't even have been attempted in 1970"

Apollo 11 landed on the moon July 20th 1969. You think that didn't take a degree of "AI" and "ML"? Or maybe we just had a different name for these things back then...

It's been 52 years since then.

We're simply focusing on the wrong problems.

[CryptoPunk]

I think that's just a matter of 1. resources and 2. risk tolerance.

1960s USA had a less superficial political culture, so was more willing to tolerate PR-sensitive risks in pursuing major technological achievements, and it could allocate a much larger proportion of GDP to the Apollo program, as government directed social welfare spending consumed a far smaller share of GDP: https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/what-is-driving-growth-...