Reviewers in two groups were given identical resumes for Emily Clarke and James Clarke and told they had used AI.
-
Reviewers in two groups were given identical resumes for Emily Clarke and James Clarke and told they had used AI. Emily's was 2x as likely to raise doubts about competence. "She can't even write a CV herself." But James "just needed a bit of help."
https://fortune.com/2026/05/10/identical-resume-ai-men-women-response-trust-ability/@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. -
@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?
@edwintorok @undead @amydiehl during interview it's pretty obvious whether you're talking with an overweight white guy in his 60s or a rare talking cat.
The point is to give them and more the same chance of getting to be interviewed. And I assume the specifics of their contributions will be discussed during interview. -
Reviewers in two groups were given identical resumes for Emily Clarke and James Clarke and told they had used AI. Emily's was 2x as likely to raise doubts about competence. "She can't even write a CV herself." But James "just needed a bit of help."
https://fortune.com/2026/05/10/identical-resume-ai-men-women-response-trust-ability/@amydiehl thank you for sharing. It's a stark reminder how much sexism there exists in the workplace.
I wonder if the fact that the CVs were generated and reviewers knew about this made any difference.
-
Reviewers in two groups were given identical resumes for Emily Clarke and James Clarke and told they had used AI. Emily's was 2x as likely to raise doubts about competence. "She can't even write a CV herself." But James "just needed a bit of help."
https://fortune.com/2026/05/10/identical-resume-ai-men-women-response-trust-ability/@amydiehl what exactly is being tested here? That two identical resumes are perceived diffently based on the assumed gender of the name at the top?
If so, *why did AI* need to get involved?*
-
J jwcph@helvede.net shared this topic
