Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by martyb on Wednesday July 04 2018, @01:22PM   Printer-friendly
from the No-irrational-AI-for-me...-make-mine-real! dept.

Ibrahim Diallo was allegedly fired by a machine. Recent news reports relayed the escalating frustration he felt as his security pass stopped working, his computer system login was disabled, and finally he was frogmarched from the building by security personnel. His managers were unable to offer an explanation, and powerless to overrule the system.

Some might think this was a taste of things to come as artificial intelligence is given more power over our lives. Personally, I drew the opposite conclusion. Diallo was sacked because a previous manager hadn't renewed his contract on the new computer system and various automated systems then clicked into action. The problems were not caused by AI, but by its absence.

The systems displayed no knowledge-based intelligence, meaning they didn't have a model designed to encapsulate knowledge (such as human resources expertise) in the form of rules, text and logical links. Equally, the systems showed no computational intelligence – the ability to learn from datasets – such as recognising the factors that might lead to dismissal. In fact, it seems that Diallo was fired as a result of an old-fashioned and poorly designed system triggered by a human error. AI is certainly not to blame – and it may be the solution.

This man was fired by a computer

What do you guys think about hiring and firing by AI? Would you agree with the article's premise?


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 5, Insightful) by MrGuy on Wednesday July 04 2018, @01:34PM (6 children)

    by MrGuy (1007) on Wednesday July 04 2018, @01:34PM (#702532)

    Oh flippin' please. AI? Really? That's the only solution to this problem?

    A person was deemed to have departed, and the automated system cancelled his accounts, locked him out, and notified security to remove him. "His managers were...powerless to overrule the system."

    Good! That's exactly how the system should work - it's how I would HOPE that the system would work at any office that works on sensitive material, and which might be in real trouble if a rogue or disgruntled employee decided to wreak havoc for vengance after being fired. You SHOULDN'T have a manager or someone else be able to intervene midway through offboarding an employee and stop the process, skip steps, or overrule decisions like "we need to revoke access.

    In the very worst case, all that happens is someone is sent home for a day (or maybe two, but if their offboarding is this efficient the onboarding is likely similar) before they get set back up when the error is realized. That's inconvenient, not tragic.

    The problem here is SOLELY on the front end. A contractor was on a contract with the end date. The manager failed to properly renew the contract, causing the system to believe the contractor was terminated. The manager didn't renew the contractor, the system correctly "failed safe" and assumed the contractor was terminated (as opposed to leaving his access open forever in case he got renewed some day).

    The solution isn't some elaborate expert system. It's bog standard workflow management stuff we've had for 30 years. The system should scan for employees on contracts with end dates in the near future (say, 60 days out) and send a reminder e-mail to the manager. It should follow up at 30 days. If at 14 days the manager hasn't either expressly renewed, or expressly stated the person will NOT be renewed, it should remind again and CC the manager's boss. Repeat at 7 days. This isn't hard - require an explicit decision. If circumstances change or the manager changes their mind, they can renew the employee any time before the contract ends. How do you NOT have a system like this in place? How would this NOT have prevented the problem?

    This person wasn't (counter to the narrative) fired by a computer. They were fired by an incompetent boss. The solution isn't AI. It's simple workflow. This is, simply put, not a hard problem to solve. Blaming their offboarding system (which I consider to be exemplary) is just dumb.

    There are plenty of places where we legitimately SHOULD be concerned about AI running amok and ruining lives. Credit profiles. Stock trading. Insurance company incorrectly flagging fraud. This is simply not one of them, and it boggles my mind that this continues to be a story in the popular press.

    Starting Score:    1  point
    Moderation   +3  
       Insightful=4, Overrated=1, Total=5
    Extra 'Insightful' Modifier   0  
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  

    Total Score:   5  
  • (Score: 5, Insightful) by Thexalon on Wednesday July 04 2018, @02:19PM (1 child)

    by Thexalon (636) on Wednesday July 04 2018, @02:19PM (#702543)

    Alternately, and equally likely, this person was fired by a cowardly boss who is blaming the computer for their own decision.

    After all, the manager could have said "I know you're locked out of the computer system. Take a week off, we'll get your updated contract extension worked out, and we'll get you back in." They didn't do so, which means the boss wanted this employee gone, regardless of what they actually say.

    Also a possibility is that the employee was someone who companies are reluctant to fire because they're in a class that can sue for wrongful termination due to, say, racial discrimination, and blaming the computer system is a legal defense.

    Either way, an old maxim comes to mind: "For every computer error, there are at least 2 human errors, including the error of blaming the computer."

    --
    The only thing that stops a bad guy with a compiler is a good guy with a compiler.
    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday July 04 2018, @05:22PM

      by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday July 04 2018, @05:22PM (#702635)

      Alternately, and equally likely, this person was fired by a cowardly boss who is blaming the computer for their own decision.

      You mean they moved his desk into the basement and took his red Swingline stapler?

  • (Score: 3, Insightful) by legont on Wednesday July 04 2018, @03:17PM (2 children)

    by legont (4179) on Wednesday July 04 2018, @03:17PM (#702562)

    That's exactly how the system should work

    No, it is not. The problem with the system is - it is stupid. While the system is stupid, it should not be able to take such actions. More specifically, the people who put such a system in place should be prosecuted for violating his human rights.

    --
    "Wealth is the relentless enemy of understanding" - John Kenneth Galbraith.
    • (Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday July 04 2018, @03:35PM (1 child)

      by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday July 04 2018, @03:35PM (#702575)

      It’s a human right to have your contract auto extended?

      His manager could have expedited the fix or told the contractor to take the day off; yet, he didn’t choose to do so. Sounds like a valid termination to me.

      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday July 04 2018, @07:59PM

        by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday July 04 2018, @07:59PM (#702716)

        It’s a human right to have your contract auto extended?

        If you're a government contractor, yes. Yes it is.

  • (Score: 1) by khallow on Thursday July 05 2018, @11:53AM

    by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Thursday July 05 2018, @11:53AM (#702928) Journal

    Good! That's exactly how the system should work - it's how I would HOPE that the system would work at any office that works on sensitive material, and which might be in real trouble if a rogue or disgruntled employee decided to wreak havoc for vengance after being fired. You SHOULDN'T have a manager or someone else be able to intervene midway through offboarding an employee and stop the process, skip steps, or overrule decisions like "we need to revoke access.

    I disagree. Who makes these decisions to fire people in the first place? The managers. Why shouldn't they be able to change their minds?

    And what happens when the rogue/disgruntled employee is in charge of the system that fires people without recourse? Sounds like they can prevent their own system from firing themselves.