[nonethewiser]

>Which means there's a good chance this is somehow correlated in one way or another to race/gender/other protected classes in the US, just by the math of everything being correlated to everything.

>Which means this is one good lawsuit away from being illegal in the US as well.

Uhh.. what? No that doesn't follow at all.

Screening resumes in a way that correlates to race, gender, etc. is not illegal. This is a fundamental distinction. The law is you cannot use those as filters. But the outcomes likely will be correlated. In fact to ensure they are not correlated you'd have to break the law and control for race, gender etc. Which is racism.

The models dont even get race as an input. If they did and they used it to select then yeah, that lawsuit sounds like it has merit. But a mere correlation in outcomes? In no way illegal what-so-ever.

[tikhonj]

The US has a notion of "disparate impact"[1] that means you can be liable for discriminating based on a protected characteristic on the basis of correlation. This is why HR departments are very hesitant to use things like IQ tests for screening candidates, for example.

[1]: https://www.congress.gov/crs-product/IF13057

[tptacek]

If they are, they're falling for an urban myth, because IQ tests in white-collar employment are legally fine, and several household-name corporations use them openly. I'm a noodge about this particular issue because there's a folk belief that IQ tests are the secret perfect hiring mechanism; it wouldn't bother me so much if it was so obvious how badly a pure IQ-test process would perform for a job in our field.

[alsetmusic]

>

How likely is an LLM to have different outcomes for Tyrone vs Jeff?