If so, *why did AI* need to get involved?*

I wonder if the fact that the CVs were generated and reviewers knew about this made any difference.

Perhaps this could be anonymized to some degree without revealing the identity (classify into: top contributor, regular contributor, occasional contributor, never contributed) which could be cross-checked against the claims on the CV. But I think a human still needs to make that judgement, evaluating contributions is not always straightforward (e.g. someone could've contributed a lot of bugreports, or wikipages, or conference talks, or could've used slightly different usernames/name spellings/etc). Also you'd need to evaluate whether those contributions are relevant for the position they apply for.

Papers cited on a CV are also difficult to anonymize, they usually have a small number of authors, and together with other information on the CV it may be obvious who it is.

Or do you restore the serial number back to a name for the technical evaluation/interview?

No one has any reason _not_ to remove identifying info like name/address from resumés/CVs (oh, and pictures!) and I don't understand why it's not a requirement.

@amydiehl

Then the anti-intersectionality White marginalized groups loudly complain about how they are treated and wonder how society ever decided it was okay to discriminate against themselves, while the politicians agree that it is indeed outrageous and unacceptable

And nothing changes.

Not becoming clear that there is a journal article after searches.

May be very much "a study by Zehra Chatoo".

Zehra Chatoo; "most recently in leadership roles at Meta, culminated in the founding of Code For Good Now, a values-led consultancy helping brands and agencies grow responsibly in the age of AI."

I don't doubt accuracy of the study.

I have got concerns about the specific values embodied and promoted by former Meta-leaders and brand builders.

#ZehraChatoo #AISlop

*POC who aren’t South East Asian of any gender versus white male*

Pretty sure I could guess the results fairly accurately…

“… women were consistently more skeptical than men that AI benefits would outweigh its risks, and were less convinced that their professional lives would gain because of the technology.”

Could this be because they can recognize it as mansplaining as a service?

It’s definitely a good idea if as a company you actually want to hire the best people and get past your own inevitable biases in that process. Hiring has been pretty broken however for a long time

This is why I always insisted that whoever received the resumes in HR replace the names with a serial number before passing it on to another HR person to review. I could only do this for my ops team, but it made a hugely positive difference in the quality of candidates we ended up with.

A sad observation…

(Eh very personal interest here - I’ve been misgendered based on my name nearly daily since I was a teenager. I’m a very cis male but daily get people asking if I’m using my wife’s card or being startled when I pick up for Shannon etc. I’ve long wondered if my resume gets penalized by bias like this study shows)