[jmugan]

Ah, but it is not one, all of the humans are biased. But maybe the difference is that each human is biased in a different way, whereas the algorithm applies the uniform bias to all. So maybe the humans are like an ensemble method.

[ip26]

That’s an extremely interesting (and concerning) point. If one human doesn’t like your resume, another somewhere else might. But if a widely used AI resume screen doesn’t like it, you won’t get hired anywhere.

This can happen today, but it could get much worse.

(On the other hand, it’s possible this turns into an arms race where you benchmark and craft your resume against a clone of the AI before submitting it)

[rcbdev]

Now to continue this line of thinking - if HR professionals all go to different colleges / schools / training centers with different curricula and are all taught to value different aspects of an applicant, then if someone passes you up someone else might not. But if a widely used textbook or HR principle is taught to everyone everywhere, you might not get hired anywhere.

I'm not saying I necessarily believe this to he an actual issue, just attempting to point out the parallels I see.

[ip26]

Yeah, it’s not new, it just could accelerate homogenization, as with how social media is (claimed) to be homogenizing culture. Planes, cars, and ships started it, but the internet (allegedly) turbocharges it.

[Towaway69]

I agree but algorithms are magnifying bias and work at incredible speeds. So bias is being applied more broadly and more intensely as the application of AIs expand.

I think we (as humans) are simply surprised by our own inherent bias and how this can be magnified by AI.