Technology

37801 readers

204 users here now

A nice place to discuss rumors, happenings, innovations, and challenges in the technology sphere. We also welcome discussions on the intersections of technology and society. If it’s technological news or discussion of technology, it probably belongs here.

Remember the overriding ethos on Beehaw: Be(e) Nice. Each user you encounter here is a person, and should be treated with kindness (even if they’re wrong, or use a Linux distro you don’t like). Personal attacks will not be tolerated.

Subcommunities on Beehaw:

This community's icon was made by Aaron Schneider, under the CC-BY-NC-SA 4.0 license.

founded 2 years ago

MODERATORS

alyaza@beehaw.org

TheRtRevKaiser@beehaw.org

gyrfalcon@beehaw.org

rs5th@beehaw.org

Los@beehaw.org

coldredlight@beehaw.org

SemioticStandard@beehaw.org

TheRtRevKaiser@kbin.social

remington@beehaw.org

Gender, Race, and Intersectional Bias in Resume Screening via Language Model (www.geekwire.com)

submitted 1 month ago by Gaywallet@beehaw.org to c/technology@beehaw.org

4 comments fedilink hide all child comments

Direct link to paper: https://ojs.aaai.org/index.php/AIES/article/view/31748/33915

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] GenderNeutralBro@lemmy.sdf.org 4 points 1 month ago (1 children)

We find that the MTEs are biased, signif-icantly favoring White-associated names in 85.1% of casesand female-associated names in only 11.1% of case

If you're planning to use LLMs for anything along these lines, you should filter out irrelevant details like names before any evaluation step. Honestly, humans should do the same, but it's impractical. This is, ironically, something LLMs are very well suited for.

Of course, that doesn't mean off-the-shelf tools are actually doing that, and there are other potential issues as well, such as biases around cities, schools, or any non-personal info on a resume that might correlate with race/gender/etc.

I think there's great potential for LLMs to reduce bias compared to humans, but half-assed implementations are currently the norm, so be careful.

[–] Gaywallet@beehaw.org 13 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (1 children)

you should filter out irrelevant details like names before any evaluation step

Unfortunately, doing this can make things worse. It's not a simple problem to solve, but you are generally on the right track. A good example of how it's more than just names, is how orchestras screen applicants - when they play a piece they do so behind a curtain so you can't see the gender of the individual. But the obfuscation doesn't stop there - they also ensure the female applicants don't wear shoes with heels (something that makes a distinct sound) and they even have someone stand on stage and step loudly to mask their footsteps/gait. It's that second level of thinking which is needed to actually obscure gender from AI, and the more complex a data set the more difficult it is to obscure that.

[–] GenderNeutralBro@lemmy.sdf.org 7 points 1 month ago

Interesting read, thanks! I'll finish it later, but already this bit is quite interesting:

Without access to gender, the ML algorithm over-predicts women to default compared to their true default rate, while the rate for men is accurate. Adding gender to the ML algorithm corrects for this and the gap in prediction accuracy for men and women who default diminishes.