Would be very interested to see how this affects post-50 workers. That's a protected class and I would imagine an ambulance chasing lawyer would be excited for a class action lawsuit.

The Pymetrics game is rigged by design:

Only 40% self report gender/race

no resume data, no education information, degrees, schools, GPA, major, work experience, skills/certifications

Zero job qualifications

A racially disparate outcome is not evidence of racial bias.

I'm struggling to figure out what they're trying to say here in the linked (and very anemic) paper:

> 30% of Black applicants apply to at least one position that demonstrates adverse impact against Black applicants.

The whole thing reads like a tautology.

This study only looks at one specific vendor algorithmn (a job assesment given by a company called pymetrics)

It's surprising to me to hear that these systems are considered racist when they're the same ones that are so color blind that they generate pictures of SS soldiers as African American women.

There is no isolation of variables. This is not science. This is propaganda.

I think the discrimination aspect is downstream from this fact:

> We follow 3.4 million people who submit 4 million job applications to 1,700 job postings across 150 employers and 11 industry sectors. Each job application was assessed by an AI hiring tool built by a single third-party vendor.

3.4 million people applying to just 150 employers... Who are all using just 1 platform. WTF. This is where the discrimination is happening. Why the f do 3.4 million people feel forced to apply to just 150 employers and why the f do all these 150 employers feel forced to use just one platform. WTF.

I’m sure (really sure) there are real problems with AI and bias, but this is a weird study that isn’t looking at resumes or anything, it’s looking at how candidates did in some weird psychometric tests.

> Using our large dataset of real hiring AI recommendations, we test our hypothesis. We find that people who submit multiple applications to positions screened by the same algorithmic hiring vendor are more likely to be rejected from every position to which they apply than would be true if the companies made decisions statistically independently from one another.

I would be surprised if the results were different.