SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
Submitted via IRC for chromas
Amazon scraps secret AI recruiting tool that showed bias against women
SAN FRANCISCO (Reuters) - Amazon.com Inc’s (AMZN.O) machine-learning specialists uncovered a big problem: their new recruiting engine did not like women.
The team had been building computer programs since 2014 to review job applicants’ resumes with the aim of mechanizing the search for top talent, five people familiar with the effort told Reuters.
Automation has been key to Amazon’s e-commerce dominance, be it inside warehouses or driving pricing decisions. The company’s experimental hiring tool used artificial intelligence to give job candidates scores ranging from one to five stars - much like shoppers rate products on Amazon, some of the people said.
[...] But by 2015, the company realized its new system was not rating candidates for software developer jobs and other technical posts in a gender-neutral way.
That is because Amazon’s computer models were trained to vet applicants by observing patterns in resumes submitted to the company over a 10-year period. Most came from men, a reflection of male dominance across the tech industry.
In effect, Amazon’s system taught itself that male candidates were preferable. It penalized resumes that included the word “women’s,” as in “women’s chess club captain.” And it downgraded graduates of two all-women’s colleges, according to people familiar with the matter. They did not specify the names of the schools.
Amazon edited the programs to make them neutral to these particular terms. But that was no guarantee that the machines would not devise other ways of sorting candidates that could prove discriminatory, the people said.
The Seattle company ultimately disbanded the team by the start of last year because executives lost hope for the project, according to the people, who spoke on condition of anonymity. Amazon’s recruiters looked at the recommendations generated by the tool when searching for new hires, but never relied solely on those rankings, they said.
rinciples.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by acid andy on Thursday October 11 2018, @08:53AM (13 children)
That's true, on average, now. But how much of that is due to the cultural gender norms under which females are raised? Yes, testosterone promotes faster growth of muscle mass, but if a girl grows up thinking (perhaps due to peers and media) that becoming very thin and spending much free time on choosing clothes, applying makeup and playing with dolls and little or no time on wrenching nuts and bolts and lifting heavy objects, is it any wonder they wind up less well suited to that construction job?
You're absolutely right. The problem is that for that to work, the fairness needs to be applied effectively at all stages of a person's development, right from birth, at home, at school, and in the content they consume. That quite clearly hasn't happened yet for most people. Not by a long shot. Instead, it gets implied that positive discrimination be applied in the candidate selection process to compensate for these earlier shortcomings, although you won't often find anyone admitting that that's what they're doing. Whether or not that's a good thing to do, I can't really answer.
If a cat has kittens, does a rat have rittens, a bat bittens and a mat mittens?
(Score: 2, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday October 11 2018, @09:53AM (4 children)
None of it! [sciencedirect.com] How many times does science have to disprove this? [nih.gov] Repeatedy? [city.ac.uk]
"equality of outcome" - a path to totalitarianism oppression under the pretense of fairness. If you want everyone the same, lock yourself in a VR sim and surround yourself with robots because this is the exact, polar opposite of actual human diversity.
Enough with the lunacy!
(Score: 2) by acid andy on Thursday October 11 2018, @10:25AM (3 children)
Woah, I wasn't saying there are no biological differences between the genders that influence their behavior. Importantly, you're just as wrong to claim that it's entirely due to nature rather than nurture. Never underestimate the effects of peer pressure on a child's behavior. Look at the female role models in movies, cartoons and worst of all, the fashion industry. The thinner the better, is what they're taught. It wasn't always so.
Yeah. It's wrong to force an outcome, but it's also wrong to punish someone for producing unconventional outcomes.
I don't. I want more carrot, less stick.
If a cat has kittens, does a rat have rittens, a bat bittens and a mat mittens?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday October 11 2018, @01:10PM (2 children)
Boys and girls behave differently from birth. The suggestion that womens magazines, edited by women for women are part of a mass patriarchal conspiracy is asinine. Men are interested in things and women in people, there's plentiful evidence it's biologically determined and we're supposed to be surprised it's reflected in cultural norms?
When most people were undernourished, women from wealthy backgrounds who carried a little weight were viewed as being healthier. When we have an obesity epidemic and wealthy people exercise, thinner is viewed as healthier. In-between, there was the whole hour glass corset thing as a way for women to advertise their fertility. The media perpetuated the the ideal of the waif as it's now attempting to perpetuate obesity. One extreme to the other, neither of them healthy yet promoting a healthy body image is somehow verboten. [westmonster.com]
Where does this happen? The only place I can think of is the steadily reflection in depression [moneyish.com] and suicide [businessinsider.com] stats for both sexes.
What is the objective, what are we trying to achieve and more importantly; why? Will the actual outcome fit the desired outcome?
(Score: 2) by acid andy on Thursday October 11 2018, @02:18PM (1 child)
I don't dispute this, except to say there will be overlap and some individuals that buck the trend.
I did not suggest this. Regarding the influence of a patriarchy though, I will say that male fashion designers and male movie makers have a fair amount of influence on shaping female role models according to their own preferences which may not have naturally been the females'.
Sometimes. Again, there are exceptions.
I've already made my point that nature versus nurture is not either / or in this case. The culture is grown out of the predisposition of the female consumers, yes, but in turn the images it portrays develop beyond that and become self-perpetuating as they influence growing girls as well as their parents, peers and authority figures.
That advertisement was a bad example, given that it was banned because people felt she was still too skinny (and rightly so because that's well below an average healthy female form, even if it does qualify as healthy)! Unless that was your point?
Well, if a girl gets called "fat" and picked on by classmates, when she has a healthy body size, that would be an example of it. There are cases of children wanting toys atypical for their gender and being forbidden by their parents. A girl interested in stereotypically nerdy or male dominated pursuits may be bullied by her peers also. In the past females have been actively discouraged from pursuing an eduction in STEM by teachers as well as others.
We want to stop pressuring people to assume stereotypical characteristics of gender roles. Most of all, we don't want to artificially hinder individuals that may do well in a role that defies the traditional expectations of their gender.
If a cat has kittens, does a rat have rittens, a bat bittens and a mat mittens?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday October 11 2018, @05:45PM
Women dress to get attention from men. Women in films and fashion were traditionally costumed to get attention from men. Other women look at other women to see how they're getting attention from men - there's an entire industry dedicated to it.
Of course and there always has been.
Doesn't seem to be true. [nationalpost.com]
I know women who work in STEM fields. 70s and 80s documentaries on youtube show women have been working in tech for a long time.
Not for an athlete or someone who trains at a gym. So we should encourage people not to conform to traditional gender roles except for someone non-conforming by being physically fitter than average?
That's bullying and would happen anyway.
We'd have an easier time naming something girls didn't bitch and bully each other over. [theatlantic.com] For one women in STEM that I know, working towards a career in a typically male field was an escape from that.
I too was advised not to pursue things I wasn't good at - art for example.
No problem with that but how does it play into having equal representation when all the data says men and women statistically enjoy and excel at different things and pursue those jobs and lifestyle choices? I cannot understand why any company would hire based on gender rather than candidate suitability.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by khallow on Thursday October 11 2018, @10:32AM (7 children)
It's not the employer's responsibility to fix applicants' cultural gender norm issues.
(Score: 2) by acid andy on Thursday October 11 2018, @11:32AM (6 children)
Some people think it is, including some governments. I don't much care whose responsibility it is as long as someone takes responsibility (really everyone has a responsibility to be fair).
I do think there are serious downsides to tokenism in the workplace--if candidates are chosen despite poor suitability, simply to make up the numbers, aren't they going to reinforce biased views against their demographic when susceptible people notice any incompetence they might have at work?
If a cat has kittens, does a rat have rittens, a bat bittens and a mat mittens?
(Score: 2, Insightful) by khallow on Thursday October 11 2018, @11:58AM (2 children)
There is a natural party here to take responsibility for the cultural norms issues of the applicant, the applicant themselves.
(Score: 2) by acid andy on Friday October 12 2018, @01:24PM (1 child)
The applicant has the most responsibility, but those who choose to be influential mentors and role models: the parents, the teachers, the media and entertainers are all undeniably responsible, at least in part, for shaping the culture and values that the applicant grows up in.
Now I am libertarian enough to say that I don't think those figures should be thrown in jail or fined simply for perpetuating a discriminatory culture. There may be exceptions in the most extreme circumstances where they are inflicting direct and significant harm on an individual -- that might already be covered by other laws though. This is one of those topics that involves attitudes and behaviors that I feel are unethical but not illegal. There should always be some things that are unethical but not illegal because government (or corporate) overreach can be more damaging than the behaviors themselves. However, that doesn't give any of you libertarians a free pass to behave like pricks, simply because it's legal!
If a cat has kittens, does a rat have rittens, a bat bittens and a mat mittens?
(Score: 1) by khallow on Friday October 12 2018, @08:16PM
I'm not seeing the employer in that list.
Assuming you can't do the job because you're X - illegal and maybe a bit dickish. Not hiring someone because they can't do the requirements of the job, even with reasonable allowances for disability? Legal and not dickish. Obviously, there's plenty in between. But it's not an employer's job to compensate for "cultural norm" issues that make someone very unsuitable for a given job.
Nobody's perfect so employers have to do some degree of training and compensation for the quirks of the employee no matter what. But some of these cultural norm issues are really serious. As mentioned, a 90 pound woman who has been starving herself most of her life combined with completely staying away from any sort of experience with tools and construction is going to be a terrible choice for most construction jobs which require some combination of physical ability and competence with hand and power tools.
It's not punishment to keep the 90 pound woman who doesn't know anything about tools or construction out of a good paying construction job. It's just common sense.
As to the "patriarchy" which you mentioned in your debate with jmorris, it's already been greatly undermined by media and culture over the past century. Still didn't stop women from adopting poor cultural norms.
(Score: 2) by jmorris on Thursday October 11 2018, @05:20PM (1 child)
And here, deep in the thread we get to the heart of the malfunction in this issue. No, nobody should care. Nobody should have the power to impose their preferred cultural norms over anyone else's. Make no mistake, that is exactly what you said, but you will now violently disagree because you will realize what it makes you. What part of freedom eludes you people? We don't want to be instructed by you. We don't want our culture uprooted and replaced with an alien one that doesn't even work. You aren't homo-superior valiantly trying to uplift the savages to the sunny uplands, nobly carrying the White Man's burden. You are just another deluded fascist.
If men and women want to be different, and every indication is they indeed do, most men and women enjoy being different and their interactions with members of the opposite sex, if they want to raise their children to also be different, that is their Right as free people. It is of course your right to disagree and do your neuter gender thing too. That is what freedom is supposed to be. What in the f*ck even put the notion in your malfunctioning mind that imposing your culture on other people, if not at gunpoint, by means at least as abusive like lawfare, was compatible with living in a free society?
If the number of women wanting to work in the tech industry is less, so what? Outright discriminating is wrong, allowing people to choose what interests them is not. Not many men in child care, nursing, social work or a hundred industries either of us could instantly list. You don't think that is a problem of course. And neither do I. But I do expect YOU do provide an explanation as to why one is a problem for you and the other obviously isn't. But we all already know the answer, most won't speak it aloud, many fear to even think it for fear they might accidentally speak it. But we all know. You even know.
Diversity is the elimination of White Heterosexual Males. Nothing else. You pretty it up with distractions and confusions, but over and over again, week after week, year after year the stories, the lawsuits pile up and it doesn't need an AI to pick out the pattern. The only time there is an objection to a demographic imbalance in the workplace or anywhere else for that matter, is if there are too many White Heterosexual Males. The fashion industry is dominated by White Homosexual Men, no protests or calls for diversity. As noted above, fields dominated by women, even if dominated by White Women, get no calls for diversity. Only when the triple is found is there a call for diversity. Although recently there have been rumblings from the Intersectional fever swamps that White Heterosexual Women's the days of immunity may be short. The Revolution is like a shark in that it must continually swim ever onward or die.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by acid andy on Thursday October 11 2018, @09:35PM
Yet that's what the established patriarchy does, in a multitude of ways.
Look, my position is that positive discrimination is a crappy way to try to fix the effects of negative discrimination.
Negative forms of gender discrimination are unfair because they make unfair generalizations that may not apply to an individual.
I'm not sure who you're arguing against, because nowhere did I say that men and women shouldn't be different. What I said was that it's wrong to negatively pressure someone into a role they are not comfortable with.
Neuter! That's a good one! Not what I was implying at all. But yes, I have a right to disagree, and discussion of these values is what I feel strongly is important. Discussion and awareness are the best ways for a culture to develop.
I've not mentioned laws or guns at all on this topic. I've simply been expressing what I feel is and is not fair.
I actually agree with these statements. It would however be unfair to discourage a young girl from developing a future interest in tech if she wants to.
If a cat has kittens, does a rat have rittens, a bat bittens and a mat mittens?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday October 12 2018, @09:22AM
Exactly. Some people think it is, but if the government is democratic it shouldn't, right?
Some people seem to have a lot of power and their supporters just don't like being in minority.