Most active commenters

    ←back to thread

    693 points jsheard | 22 comments | | HN request time: 0.001s | source | bottom
    1. tavavex ◴[] No.45093991[source]
    The year is 2032. One of the big tech giants has introduced Employ AI, the premiere AI tool for combating fraud and helping recruiters sift through thousands of job applications. It is now used in over 70% of HR departments, for nearly all salaried positions, from senior developers to minimum wage workers.

    You apply for a job, using your standardized Employ resume that you filled out. It comes bundled with your Employ ID, issued by the company to keep track of which applications have been submitted by specifically you.

    When Employ AI does its internet background check on you, it discovers an article about a horrific attack. Seven dead, twenty-six injured. The article lists no name for the suspect, but it does have an expert chime in, one that happens to share their last name with you. Your first name also happens to pop up somewhere in the article.

    With complete confidence that this is about you, Employ AI adds the article to its reference list. It condenses everything into a one-line summary: "Applicant is a murderer, unlikely to promote team values and social cohesion. Qualifications include..." After looking at your summary for 0.65 seconds, the recruiter rejects your application. Thanks to your Employ ID, this article has now been stapled to every application you'll ever submit through the system.

    You've been nearly blacklisted from working. For some reason, all of your applications never go past the initial screening. You can't even know about the existence of the article, no one will tell you this information. And even if you find out, what are you going to do about it? The company will never hear your pleas, they are too big to ever care about someone like you, they are not in the business of making exceptions. And legally speaking, it's technically not the software making final screening decisions, and it does say its summaries are experimental and might be inaccurate in 8pt light gray text on a white background. You are an acceptable loss, as statistically <1% of applicants find themselves in this situation.

    replies(7): >>45094022 #>>45094060 #>>45094116 #>>45094125 #>>45094163 #>>45094183 #>>45094232 #
    2. chabes ◴[] No.45094022[source]
    They didn’t even share names in the case of the OP
    3. tantalor ◴[] No.45094060[source]
    What's to stop you from running the same check on yourself, so you can see what the employers are seeing?

    If anything this scenario makes the hiring process more transparent.

    replies(4): >>45094098 #>>45094217 #>>45094323 #>>45101053 #
    4. fmbb ◴[] No.45094098[source]
    Wrong question. What would enable you to run the same check?
    replies(3): >>45094153 #>>45094168 #>>45094797 #
    5. xattt ◴[] No.45094116[source]
    I roll 12. Employ AI shudders as my words echo through its memory banks: “Record flagged as disputed”. A faint glow surrounds my Employ ID profile. It is not complete absolution, but a path forward. The world may still mistrust me, but the truth can still be reclaimed.
    6. bell-cot ◴[] No.45094125[source]
    IANAL...but at scale, this might make some libel lawyers rather rich.
    replies(3): >>45094190 #>>45094333 #>>45101026 #
    7. dexterdog ◴[] No.45094153{3}[source]
    Paying the company that sells the service of checking for you.
    8. dakial1 ◴[] No.45094163[source]
    Well, there is always the option to create regulation where if the employer uses AI to summarize outputs, it must share with you the full content of the report before the recruiter sees it so that you can point out any inconsistency/error or better explain some passages.
    replies(1): >>45094185 #
    9. Schiendelman ◴[] No.45094168{3}[source]
    The FCRA would likely already require that you can receive a copy of the check.
    10. FourteenthTime ◴[] No.45094183[source]
    This is the most likely scenario. Half-baked AIs used by all tech giants and tech subgiants will make a mess of our identities. There needs to be a way for us to review and approve information about ourselves that goes into permanent records. In the 80's you send a resume to a company, they keep it on file. It might be BS but I attested to it. Maybe... ugh I can't believe I"m saying this: blockchain?
    11. insane_dreamer ◴[] No.45094185[source]
    Unlikely to ever happen. Employers don't even respond to rejected applicants most of the time much less tell them why they were rejected.
    replies(1): >>45094252 #
    12. timeinput ◴[] No.45094190[source]
    I think the emphasis should probably be on the might. If Employ AI (in my head cannon a wholly owned subsidiary of Google, Facebook, or Palantir), decides to use their free legal billable hours (because the lawyers are on staff anyway), unless you get to the level of class action you don't have a prayer of coming out on top.
    replies(1): >>45095673 #
    13. tavavex ◴[] No.45094217[source]
    You only have access to the applicant-facing side of the software, one that will dispense you an Employ ID, an application template, and will enable you to track the status of your application. To prevent people from abusing the system and finding workarounds, employers need to apply to be given an employer license that lets them use all the convenient filtering tools. Most tech companies have already bought one, as did all the large companies. Places like individual McDonald's franchises use their greater company's license. It's not a completely watertight system, but monitoring is just stringent enough to make your detailed application info inaccessible for nearly everyone. Maybe if you have the right credentials, or if you manage to fool the megacorp into believing that you're an actual employer, it's possible.
    14. buyucu ◴[] No.45094232[source]
    I think 2032 is unrealistic. I expect this to happen 2027 latest.
    15. malfist ◴[] No.45094252{3}[source]
    This is exactly how credit reports work
    16. const_cast ◴[] No.45094323[source]
    Why would you have access to the software?

    Do you currently run the various automated resume parsing software that employers use? I mean - do you even know what the software is? Like even a name or something? No?

    17. const_cast ◴[] No.45094333[source]
    This is why you just don't tell people about the libel.

    Companies already, today, never give you even an inkling of the reason why they didn't hire you.

    replies(1): >>45095118 #
    18. tgv ◴[] No.45094797{3}[source]
    Even if you could, how could you possibly correct the process? In the USA, it would probably take many years, possibly all the way to the Supreme Court, and the big bucks win anyway.

    AI believers, pay attention and stop your downplaying and justifications. This can hit you too, or your healthcare. The machine doesn't give a damn.

    19. bell-cot ◴[] No.45095118{3}[source]
    "Don't tell the victim" doesn't actually scale up to "victims never find out".
    20. bluGill ◴[] No.45095673{3}[source]
    Legal fees are commonly part of a law suit. The courts don't like it when you waste time. Good lawyers know how to get their money.
    21. pjc50 ◴[] No.45101026[source]
    Not in the US, no. It might have interesting interactions with GDPR and the "right to correct information", though.
    22. pjc50 ◴[] No.45101053[source]
    You're assuming the software gives the same response to every user. Or even gives the same response twice. And if it does .. how do you correct it?

    Worker blacklists have been a real problem in a few places: https://www.bbc.com/news/business-36242312