Employers are letting artificial intelligence conduct job interviews. Candidates are trying to beat the system.

“And when they got on the phone, Ty assumed the recruiter, who introduced herself as Jaime, was human. But things got robotic.”

  • deweydecibel@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    133
    ·
    4 months ago

    And when they got on the phone, Ty assumed the recruiter, who introduced herself as Jaime, was human. But things got robotic.

    If regulators are trying to come up with AI regulations, this is where you start.

    It should be a law that no LLM/“AI” is allowed to pass itself off as human. They must always state, up front, what they are. No exceptions.

      • maynarkh@feddit.nl
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        10
        ·
        4 months ago

        Since the GDPR, companies are required to give you a detailed breakdown on why an AI would reject you, if the final decision is on the AI. I’m not sure how many companies are complying though, it’s hard to enforce.

        • just another dev@lemmy.my-box.dev
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          7
          ·
          edit-2
          4 months ago

          Huh? GDPR is about your rights to your personal data, not the algorithms that act upon them. And the EU AI act has not been put into law yet, AFAIK.

          • maynarkh@feddit.nl
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            11
            ·
            4 months ago

            Article 22 GDPR:

            The data subject shall have the right not to be subject to a decision based solely on automated processing, including profiling, which produces legal effects concerning him or her or similarly significantly affects him or her. […]

            There is a carve-out if it “is necessary for entering into, or performance of, a contract between the data subject and a data controller”, which nobody seems sure what it means, and it has not been tested in court.

    • PM_Your_Nudes_Please@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      14
      ·
      4 months ago

      I would argue that AI also shouldn’t be allowed to make legally binding decisions, like deciding who to hire. Since a computer can’t be held accountable for its decisions, there’s nothing stopping it from blatantly discriminating.

    • FlumPHP@programming.dev
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      10
      ·
      4 months ago

      It should be illegal to use an AI in the hiring process that can’t explain its decisions accurately. There’s too much of a risk of bias in training data to empower a black box system. ChatGPT can lie, so anything powered by it is out.

    • NoRodent@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      9
      ·
      4 months ago

      They also should not harm a human being or, through inaction, allow a human being to come to harm.

    • FiveMacs@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      4 months ago

      Yes. I assume anyone from a company is a bot right out of the gate.