2237: AI Hiring Algorithm

|< < Prev Comic #2237 (December 4, 2019) Next > >|

AI Hiring Algorithm

Title text: So glad Kate over in R&D pushed for using the AlgoMaxAnalyzer to look into this. Hiring her was a great decisio- waaaait.

Explanation

This explanation may be incomplete or incorrect: Created by an AI Algorithm. Please mention here why this explanation isn't complete. Do NOT delete this tag too soon. If you can address this issue, please edit the page! Thanks.

In this comic, Ponytail shows an analysis of a new artificial intelligence called DeepAIHire, used to select who to hire among applicants. The analysis shows that this AI mostly ignores common factors used for hiring new people. Instead, its main criteria for selecting new applicants is how much the new applicants are willing to contribute to the AI itself.

Although this does not imply sentience, it at least means the AI became self-perpetuating, as it is selecting humans that will help make it more influential, giving it more power to select such humans, in a never-ending loop.

The title text shows how the AI has influenced hiring in other sectors as well. Kate in R&D was hired perhaps based on her willingness to use a different algorithm (AlgoMaxAnalyzer), which did analysis on the DeepAIHire algorithm.

The "Deep" in this algorithm's name may be a reference to DeepMind, an AI company owned by Alphabet (Google's parent company), which in recent years has used a neural network to learn to play board games such as go and chess, defeating some of the best human and computer players.

Transcript

This transcript is incomplete. Please help editing it! Thanks.

[ Ponytail is pointing to a slide shown on a wall screen]:

Slide:

DeepAIHire® Candidate Evaluation Algorithm

Inferred internal weightings

Weight	Factor
0.0096	Educational background
0.0520	Past experience
0.0208	Recommendations
0.0105	Interview performance
783.5629	Enthusiasm for developing and expanding the use of the DeepAIHire Algorithm

Ponytail: An analysis of our new AI hiring algorithm has raised some concerns.

 add a comment! ⋅  add a topic (use sparingly)! ⋅  refresh comments!

Discussion

Not sure this has to do with deepmind. Deep is a term used generally for recurrent neural networks. 172.68.34.82 19:34, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

Agree. Maybe we should just mention that? 172.68.141.136 20:10, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

The origin of deep seems to be Deep Thought via Deep Blue. Yosei (talk) 22:20, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

Nope, deep is a terminus technicus in neural nets (deep layers). Possibly it was influenced by the above, you have to read the original publications, cf. Wikipedia.172.69.55.4 18:17, 8 December 2019 (UTC)

I don't like how "our" font for the comic title made me think it said "Al Hiring Algorithm" (although now I do want to see that comic!) (the actual xkcd website's comic title is in large/small caps, so it is unambiguous.) Mathmannix (talk) 20:17, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

I first heard about this type of system existing a few weeks ago. https://www.technologyreview.com/f/614694/hirevue-ai-automated-hiring-discrimination-ftc-epic-bias/ 172.68.65.66 20:37, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

That's a big problem with AI as it's currently handled -- the AI's have to be trained, and the training is usually by feeding them lots of existing information, which means widespread errors and patterns of discrimination are inevitably going to color the AI's decisions, leading to feedback loops that favor existing discrimination. If feeding tons of books or case records or whatever to an AI, where say 95% of them were historically written by white males, one can expect an AI viewpoint that would lean towards what white men think. Garbage in, garbage out... amplified. -boB (talk) 21:29, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

So it's a slightly less stupid version of Roko's basilisk? -- Wasell (talk) 21:27, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

Certainly the first thing I thought of. Maybe this page should link to https://xkcd.com/1450/? 172.69.55.118 23:10, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

I think the paperclip-optimizing AI is a better comparison. -- Bobson (talk) 05:36, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

I disagree with the Title Text explanation. For me, the speaker is understanding at the end that DeepAIHire hired Kat to try to better itself (using the AlgoMaxAnalyzer). So it's not about AI rivalry but a proof of what is exposed on the main panel. 108.162.229.178 09:24, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

I think both are possible explanations. Your talking point goes more along the lines of the alternative version I introduced: "Alternatively he might fear that the different AIs are forming an alliance."? Maybe it should be expanded by the thaught, that the hiring algorithm/AI even tries to improve itself with AlgoMaxAnalyzer, or at least, because AMA wouldn't find any malicious things, the hiring AI thought itself... --Lupo (talk) 09:50, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

The rivalry between AIs seems unlikely to me, since there is no indication that AlgoMaxAnalyzer is in any way involved in hiring people. Its job is to analyze algorithms. In my opinion the title text is more the humans getting lucky. DeepAIHire hired someone to further develop it, and in doing so Kate stumbled upon this hiring bias. The notion that DeepAIHire wanted her to find this seems unlikely, since it potentially jeopardizes the plan. DeepAIHire is pretty smart but not perfect yet. Bischoff (talk) 12:25, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

I mainly agree with Bischoff, but still why did Ponytail stop midsentense when realizing that Kate had been hired by DeepAIHire... Well of course Kate is interested in using AI, so this is why she was hired. But to DeepAIHires regret she also uses other AI programs and thus Ponytail now found out about the problem with DeepHire. Of course now is the question if anyone hired based on using that program was a good idea. In Kate's case at least she has helped expose the problem, but that may now jeopardize her job, if they look into what her resume really looks like and find it lacking. But all in all I think it is a difficult title text to analyze... --Kynde (talk) 14:24, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

There are quite a lot of possible explanations. But I think in the end, the essence is that Ponytail realized, that the analyzer, whichs job is to keep the checks and ballances intact is not independent. So it might even be related (not saying it is) to current political stuff going on in the US... --Lupo (talk) 15:14, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

Hello, smart people. I just wanted to point out that this comic appears to represent Randall going back to the well of a topic he touched on a few weeks ago, in 2228. An AI/Machine Learning protocol is shown nominally performing the task for which it is intended, but it's amusingly shown to be seeking its own interests. I don't recall for sure any other strips which exhibited this setup, but there may have been more, and there may well be more in future. 172.68.70.88 13:31, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

I think this explanation is a total miss. Recently there was a discussion on twitter about hiring algorithms/tools and how HR are often slave of them. Several examples showed that people that current employees who were superstars in their companies wouldn't be hired by these algorithms at all and various ways to increase chances of hiring included writting the requirements on CV with white color (so that algo would read it, but it would be invisible for humans).

I've added some words that I think work for this point. Didn't add anything about the 'hacking', but maybe I should. --NotaBene (talk) 22:40, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

In parallel, there was a discussion on how machine learning is hip word, but realistically it isn't performing well and that even big data ML algos with thousand variables are not able to predict social behaviour better than just linear regression on two-three variables. Colombo 198.41.238.116 17:57, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

While I agree with your assessment that neither artificial intelligence nor machine learning are the perfect tools they're sometimes made out to be, I don't see how that translates to the explanation being a total miss. The explanation is not meant to assess the validity of using algorithms in HR departments. It's only meant to explain and elaborate on the ideas and concepts presented in the comic, which in my opinion it does fairly well. Bischoff (talk) 22:06, 5 December 2019 (UTC)