LLMs reproducing stereotypes is a well researched topic. They do that due to what they are. Stereotypes and bias in (in the training data), bias and stereotypes out. That’s what they’re meant to do. And all AI companies have entire departments to tune that, measure the biases and then fine-tune it to whatever they deem fit.
I mean the issue aren’t women or anything, it’s using AI for hiring in the first place. You do that if you want whatever stereotypes Anthropic and OpenAI gave to you.
Just pattern recognition in the end, and extrapolating from that sample size.
Issue is they probably want to pattern-recognize something like merit / ability / competence here. And ignore other factors. Which is just hard to do.
Seems like a normal, sane and totally not-biased source
ah, mamdani the guy who dehumanized hindus
That article has a lot of reaching between the proof it claims and its conclusion.
I dunno why people even care about this bullshit pseudo-science. The study is dumb AF. The dude didn’t even use real resumes. He had an LLM generate TEN fake resumes and then the “result” is still within any reasonable margin of error. Reading this article is like watching a clown show.
It’s all phony smoke and mirrors. Clickbait. The usual “AI” grift.
and their companies are biased against humans in hiring.
deleted by creator
the AI considered
Sorry to break it to you, but the “AI” does not “consider” anything. They are talking about a language prediction model.
Handpicks poor ‘studies’ to justify personal belief that women are better.
At least where I’m from it’s pretty well known that girls outperform boys in school, probably because their brains develop slightly faster in some ways useful to perform in a class room.
This could give women a head start and very well lead to them on average performing better in work life, until they are forced to choose between careers and families while they partners continue to advance their careers at full speed not worrying about being pregnant.
But that’s a different discussion. We should avoid biases in hiring because biases suck and make for an unjust society. And we should stop pretending language models make intelligent considerations about anything.
What’s fascinating here is that LLMs trained on the texts we produce create the opposite bias of what we observe in society, where men tend to get preferential treatment. My guess is that this is a consequence of inclusive language. In my writibg, whenever women are under-represented, I make a point out of defaulting to she and her rather than her and him. I know others do the same. I imagine this could feed into LLMs. Whatever it is that causes this, it sure as fuck isn’t anything actually intelligent.
At least where I’m from it’s pretty well known that girls outperform boys in school, probably because their brains develop slightly faster in some ways useful to perform in a class room.
At least where I’m from, it’s pretty well know that the education system is better suited to girls than boys because it badly needs a reform, and that studies show that separating boys and girls greatly improves the attainment of boys whilst also making modest improvement for girls. It’s as if combining boys and girls in the name of politically-correct inclusion actually had a detrimental effect on the actual outcome of schooling.
This could give women a head start and very well lead to them on average performing better in work life, until they are forced to choose between careers and families while they partners continue to advance their careers at full speed not worrying about being pregnant.
To paraphrase this: women can get pregnant and then can’t work and it’s the man’s fault. I thinks someone’s watched too much Handmaid’s Tale
It sure isn’t the extreme and aggressive pandering to feminism that gives women a “head start” just because they’re women and not because they’re the best for the job (such as all the women-only startups, the women-only software teams, the grants given to the above because they’re women-only), but because they’re better educated, right?
we should stop pretending language models make intelligent considerations about anything.
LLMs trained on the texts we produce create the opposite bias of what we observe in society
So you’re actually stating that LLMs are making dumb decisions by recommending women over men. And they’re your observations, from your model of the world, framed as you want. What I observe in society is a huge increase in the amount of advertising aimed at women with a feminist message because women are being programmed to flock to such messages (to buy products), whilst ironically conditioning them and giving them entitlement to claim anything they want, because, they’re women.
Given the actual reality, this shows how extreme the bias against men in current literature really is and it isn’t surprising that LLMs are recommending women over men given all the noise about how women are vastly superior to men.
If I were a woman concerned about equality, I think I’d be having an epiphany about now, and using this as an example of how bad things are and that they need to change.
At least where I’m from, it’s pretty well know that the education system is better suited to girls than boys, probably because it needs a reform
I didn’t say it doesn’t, clearly there’s a problem when half the population is systematically favoured.
To paraphrase: women can get pregnant and can’t work and it’s the man’s fault
Where the fuck did I say that it’s the man’s fault? It’s a societal problem, doesn’t mean it’s anybody’s fault. At least not an entire gender in general. Capitalism as a system, yeah, probably.
What I observe in society are a huge increase in the amount of advertising aimed at women with a feminist message because women are being programmed to flock to such messages
I’m the first to criticize corporate feminism (just like greenwashing and pride washing), but I suspect feminist messaging appeals to women because they are sick of the patriarchy, not because they are programmed by marketing agencies. The fuck are you on about.
That said, I think you’re right that the messaging of companies trying to appear feminist in their communications while nevertheless usually being run almost exclusively by men is a huge part of the source material that produces the bias here. I’m not sure we disagree much in substance, but I suspect we come from different starting points in how we see gender dynamics in society.
So now you’re backtracking and disagreeing that it isn’t because girl’s brains develop faster, but because the education system is actually better for girls than boys? Oh, right, so why didn’t you write that in the first place.
I suspect feminist messaging appeals to women because they are sick of the patriarchy, not because they are programmed by marketing agencies. The fuck are you on about.
Lol. Aren’t you a good feminist. Throwing tired phrases around like “they are sick of the patriarchy”, yawn. You’re the sexist version of anti-vaxxers.
I think you’re right that the messaging of companies trying to appear feminist in their communications while nevertheless usually being run almost exclusively by men is a huge part of the source material that produces the bias here.
Lol, that isn’t what I wrote - again, it’s what your distorted view of the world understands. Of course, women work in such companies and also approve such messages to meet sales. Shock. But yawn, again, from your pov, it’s the men’s fault because that opinion justifies your hatred of men - it’s them, not me.
That said, I think you’re right that the messaging of companies trying to appear feminist in their communications while nevertheless usually being run almost exclusively by men is a huge part of the source material that produces the bias here. I’m not sure we disagree much in substance, but I suspect we come from different starting points in how we see gender dynamics in society.
It’s not men against women, it’s people against billionaires.
It’s not the fact that these people are men that I take issue with, it’s that they are hypocrites capitalising feminist sentiments without making any actual effort towards real change.
Edit: Since I wrote my response the comment I responded to was changed into something even dumber. I’ll let it speak for itself.
the problematic part of this is that you’ve stripped all context to support your, admittedly bigoted, rhetoric and ethos.
black people, generally, have worse education outcomes than whites in american education. you’d still be an incredibly shitty and terrible person if you advocated hiring white people over black people by rote rule. you can find plenty of “studies” that formalize that argument just as you have here, though. essentialist can just say whatever they want, you guys aren’t bounded by rational thought and critical thinking like the rest of us. no, arguing considering context would be too hard. you’d rather just sort people into nice little easy bins, wouldn’t you?
no, i think most rational people understand that in a scenario like this all people have, on average, the same basic cognitive faculties and potential, and would then proceed to advocate for improving the educational conditions for groups that are falling behind not due to their own nature, but due to the system they are in.
but idk, i’m not a bigot so maybe my brain just implicitly rejects the idea “X people are worse/less intelligent/etc than Y people”
fucking think about what you’re saying. there is no “right people” to hate other than the rich and powerful. it isn’t a subversion of the feminist message to admit this. in fact, it makes you a better feminist. real feminist aren’t sexist.
can you imagine if you said this in a racial context and then you made an edit like “edit: can see i offended a lot of darkies with this :)”… are you dense? can you not see how you are engaging in the same kind of thought that oppressed you and likely spurred you towards feminism in the first place? except you don’t understand that what you do is patently unfeminist and makes the world a worse place. i can honestly say i fucking despise bigots, including people just like you.
