Reviewers in two groups were given identical resumes for Emily Clarke and James Clarke and told they had used AI.

[jeanniewarner@wandering.shop]

@amydiehl is this similar to the study they did showing the unconscious gender bias in science and education based on blanking versus non-blanking names on papers?

[rycaut@mastodon.social]

@amydiehl @mhoye I seriously wonder how people read resumes where the name is ambiguous.

(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)

[xs4me2@mastodon.social]

@amydiehl

A sad observation…

[mhoye@cosocial.ca]

@Rycaut @amydiehl At a previous job we put a pile of work into stripping names and gender/cultural identifiers out of CVs before any human looked at them just to minimize bias. It's a lot of work. Worth doing but a lot of work.

[undead@masto.hackers.town]

@amydiehl

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.

[rycaut@mastodon.social]

@mhoye @amydiehl indeed I think that’s great but also hard once the process starts - I suspect however that most companies don’t do that work (and these days many use AI filters that likely have unknown biases to filter most applications before a human even sees them.)

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

[dpontifex@infosec.exchange]

@amydiehl @mhoye

“… 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?

[locha@fediscience.org]

@amydiehl There’s a paywall. Would you share the link to the scientific paper?

[oberstenzian@mastodon.social]

@amydiehl Now let’s try the same experiment again but with a twist:

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

Pretty sure I could guess the results fairly accurately…

[timo21@mastodon.sdf.org]

@Rycaut @amydiehl @mhoye That might be. I knew a white guy who used his full first name, Jerome, not Jerry or whatever. He said he was always being put in the POC box because of his first name. It didn't bother him, because he was a great guy, but he knew when it was happening.

[hypostase@bsd.network]

@Rycaut
Yes. Yes it does. I'm only a sample of one, and the rest I've seen is anecdotal, but I've had very different responses to first name v initials only.
Not every time, but enough. And not a few mildly disappointed oh we thought you were a bloke comments when I've used this name.
@amydiehl @mhoye

[donchacale@mastodon.social]

@amydiehl
jesus fucking christ.. still!

[skua@mastodon.social]

@locha @amydiehl

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

[wobweger@mstdn.social]

@amydiehl 🤨

[me_valentijn@m.ai6yr.org]

@oberstenzian @amydiehl
Researchers do that one periodically in the Netherlands. Results: employers are massively racist, and the politicians never care.

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.

[faithfulljohn@mastodon.scot]

@amydiehl 🤮🤬

[joy_intl@mastodon.online]

@undead on behalf of all people who actually want a more equitable world, thank you.

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

[ginevracat@toot.community]

@dpontifex @ShaulaEvans @amydiehl @mhoye 100%

[edwintorok@discuss.systems]

@undead @amydiehl how do you deal with projects mentioned on the CV if the name is removed? If an unfamiliar project is mentioned you may want to look it up, and then it'd be useful to know whether they were one of the main contributors (probably only relevant for people who have open source contributions on their CV).

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?

[varpie@peculiar.florist]

@amydiehl Some say AI tooling is a multiplicator. Here it's just the same: the people showing doubts toward the feminine persona are just using it as an excuse to justify their inherent sexism...
I'd be curious to see more details about the study though: who are the reviewers? How big are the sets of people they have to review? How does the use of AI affect their overall judgement, compared to their gender specific acceptance rate? I just don't understand where this 22% number comes from, but my guess is the use of AI isn't a significant factor here when correlated to gender.