More Like this

1. An external stability audit framework to test the validity of personality prediction in AI hiring

   https://doi.org/10.1007/s10618-022-00861-0  

   Rhea, Alene_K; Markey, Kelsey; D’Arinzo, Lauren; Schellmann, Hilke; Sloane, Mona; Squires, Paul; Arif_Khan, Falaah; Stoyanovich, Julia (September 2022, Data Mining and Knowledge Discovery)

   Abstract Automated hiring systems are among the fastest-developing of all high-stakes AI systems. Among these are algorithmic personality tests that use insights from psychometric testing, and promise to surface personality traits indicative of future success based on job seekers’ resumes or social media profiles. We interrogate the validity of such systems using stability of the outputs they produce, noting that reliability is a necessary, but not a sufficient, condition for validity. Crucially, rather than challenging or affirming the assumptions made in psychometric testing — that personality is a meaningful and measurable construct, and that personality traits are indicative of future success on the job — we frame our audit methodology around testing the underlying assumptions made by the vendors of the algorithmic personality tests themselves. Our main contribution is the development of a socio-technical framework for auditing the stability of algorithmic systems. This contribution is supplemented with an open-source software library that implements the technical components of the audit, and can be used to conduct similar stability audits of algorithmic systems. We instantiate our framework with the audit of two real-world personality prediction systems, namely, Humantic AI and Crystal. The application of our audit framework demonstrates that both these systems show substantial instability with respect to key facets of measurement, and hence cannot be considered valid testing instruments. 

   more » « less
2. An Auditing Imperative for Automated Hiring

   Ajunwa, Ifeoma (April 2021, Harvard journal of law technology)

   null (Ed.)

   The high bar of proof to demonstrate either a disparate treatment or disparate impact cause of action under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, coupled with the “black box” nature of many automated hiring systems, renders the detection and redress of bias in such algorithmic systems difficult. This Article, with contributions at the intersection of administrative law, employment & labor law, and law & technology, makes the central claim that the automation of hiring both facilitates and obfuscates employment discrimination. That phenomenon and the deployment of intellectual property law as a shield against the scrutiny of automated systems combine to form an insurmountable obstacle for disparate impact claimants. To ensure against the identified “bias in, bias out” phenomenon associated with automated decision-making, I argue that the employer’s affirmative duty of care as posited by other legal scholars creates “an auditing imperative” for algorithmic hiring systems. This auditing imperative mandates both internal and external audits of automated hiring systems, as well as record-keeping initiatives for job applications. Such audit requirements have precedent in other areas of law, as they are not dissimilar to the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) audits in labor law or the Sarbanes-Oxley Act audit requirements in securities law. I also propose that employers that have subjected their automated hiring platforms to external audits could receive a certification mark, “the Fair Automated Hiring Mark,” which would serve to positively distinguish them in the labor market. Labor law mechanisms such as collective bargaining could be an effective approach to combating the bias in automated hiring by establishing criteria for the data deployed in automated employment decision-making and creating standards for the protection and portability of said data. The Article concludes by noting that automated hiring, which captures a vast array of applicant data, merits greater legal oversight given the potential for “algorithmic blackballing,” a phenomenon that could continue to thwart many applicants’ future job bids. 

   more » « less
3. The Paradox of Automation as Anti-Bias Intervention

   Ajunwa, Ifeoma (April 2020, Cardozo law review)

   null (Ed.)

   A received wisdom is that automated decision-making serves as an anti-bias intervention. The conceit is that removing humans from the decision-making process will also eliminate human bias. The paradox, however, is that in some instances, automated decision-making has served to replicate and amplify bias. With a case study of the algorithmic capture of hiring as heuristic device, this Article provides a taxonomy of problematic features associated with algorithmic decision-making as anti-bias intervention and argues that those features are at odds with the fundamental principle of equal opportunity in employment. To examine these problematic features within the context of algorithmic hiring and to explore potential legal approaches to rectifying them, the Article brings together two streams of legal scholarship: law and technology studies and employment & labor law. Counterintuitively, the Article contends that the framing of algorithmic bias as a technical problem is misguided. Rather, the Article’s central claim is that bias is introduced in the hiring process, in large part, due to an American legal tradition of deference to employers, especially allowing for such nebulous hiring criterion as “cultural fit.” The Article observes the lack of legal frameworks that take into account the emerging technological capabilities of hiring tools which make it difficult to detect disparate impact. The Article thus argues for a re-thinking of legal frameworks that take into account both the liability of employers and those of the makers of algorithmic hiring systems who, as brokers, owe a fiduciary duty of care. Particularly related to Title VII, the Article proposes that in legal reasoning corollary to extant tort doctrines, an employer’s failure to audit and correct its automated hiring platforms for disparate impact could serve as prima facie evidence of discriminatory intent, leading to the development of the doctrine of discrimination per se. The article also considers other approaches separate from employment law such as establishing consumer legal protections for job applicants that would mandate their access to the dossier of information consulted by automated hiring systems in making the employment decision. 

   more » « less
4. Personality of AI

   Yu, Byunggu; Kim, Junwhan (June 2024, Springer LNCS)

   This research paper delves into the evolving landscape of fine-tuning large language models (LLMs) to align with human users, extending beyond basic alignment to propose "personality alignment" for language models in organizational settings. Acknowledging the impact of training methods on the formation of undefined personality traits in AI models, the study draws parallels with human fitting processes using personality tests. Through an original case study, we demonstrate the necessity of personality fine-tuning for AIs and raise intriguing questions about applying human-designed tests to AIs, engineering specialized AI personality tests, and shaping AI personalities to suit organizational roles. The paper serves as a starting point for discussions and developments in the burgeoning field of AI personality alignment, offering a foundational anchor for future exploration in human-machine teaming and co-existence. 

   more » « less
5. Algorithmic equity in the hiring of underrepresented IT job candidates

   https://doi.org/10.1108/OIR-10-2018-0334  

   Yarger, Lynette; Cobb Payton, Fay; Neupane, Bikalpa (December 2019, Online Information Review)

   null (Ed.)

   Purpose The purpose of this paper is to offer a critical analysis of talent acquisition software and its potential for fostering equity in the hiring process for underrepresented IT professionals. The under-representation of women, African-American and Latinx professionals in the IT workforce is a longstanding issue that contributes to and is impacted by algorithmic bias. Design/methodology/approach Sources of algorithmic bias in talent acquisition software are presented. Feminist design thinking is presented as a theoretical lens for mitigating algorithmic bias. Findings Data are just one tool for recruiters to use; human expertise is still necessary. Even well-intentioned algorithms are not neutral and should be audited for morally and legally unacceptable decisions. Feminist design thinking provides a theoretical framework for considering equity in the hiring decisions made by talent acquisition systems and their users. Social implications This research implies that algorithms may serve to codify deep-seated biases, making IT work environments just as homogeneous as they are currently. If bias exists in talent acquisition software, the potential for propagating inequity and harm is far more significant and widespread due to the homogeneity of the specialists creating artificial intelligence (AI) systems. Originality/value This work uses equity as a central concept for considering algorithmic bias in talent acquisition. Feminist design thinking provides a framework for fostering a richer understanding of what fairness means and evaluating how AI software might impact marginalized populations. 

   more » « less