• AmbitiousProcess (they/them)@piefed.social
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    7
    ·
    51 minutes ago

    The study claims that they analyzed participants’ labor market outcomes, that being earnings and propensity to move jobs, “among other things.”

    Fun fact, did you know white men tend to get paid more than black men for the same job, with the same experience and education?

    Following that logic, if we took a dataset of both black and white men, then used their labor market outcomes to judge which one would be a good fit over another, white men would have higher earnings and be recommended for a job more than black people.

    Black workers are also more likely to switch jobs, one of the reasons likely being because you tend to experience higher salary growth when moving jobs every 2-3 years than when you stay with a given company, which is necessary if you’re already being paid lower wages than your white counterparts.

    By this study’s methodology, that person could be deemed “unreliable” because they often switch jobs, and would then not be considered.

    Essentially, this is a black box that gets to excuse management saying “fuck all black people, we only want to hire whites” while sounding all smart and fancy.

  • verdi@feddit.org
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    5
    ·
    edit-2
    50 minutes ago

    FYI, it’s not a paper, it’s a blog post from well connected and presumably highly educated people benefiting from the institutional prestige to see their poorly conducted study be propagated ad eternum without a modicum of relevant peer review.

    edit: After a few more minutes, it’s an unreliable psychopath detector.

  • panda_abyss@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    29
    ·
    edit-2
    2 hours ago

    Racial profiling keeps getting reinvented.

    Fuck that.

    They then used data on these individuals’ labour-market outcomes to see whether the Photo Big Five had any predictive power. The answer, they conclude, is yes: facial analysis has useful things to say about a person’s post-mba earnings and propensity to move jobs, among other things.

    Correlation vs causation. More attractive people will be defaulted to better negotiating positions. People with richer backgrounds will probably look healthier. People from high stress environments will show signs of stress through skin wrinkles and resting muscles.

    This is going to do nothing but enforce systemic biases, but in a kafkaesque Gattica way.

    And then of course you have the garden of forking paths.

    These models have zero restraint on their features, so we have an extremely large feature space, and we train the model to pick features predictive of the outcome. Even the process of training, evaluating, then selecting the best model at this scale ends up being essentially P hacking.

  • psycotica0@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    58
    ·
    edit-2
    4 hours ago

    "Imagine appearing for a job interview and, without saying a single word, being told that you are not getting the role because your face didn’t fit. You would assume discrimination, and might even contemplate litigation. But what if bias was not the reason?

    Uh… guys…

    Discrimination: the act, practice, or an instance of unfairly treating a person or group differently from other people or groups on a class or categorical basis

    Prejudice: an adverse opinion or leaning formed without just grounds or before sufficient knowledge

    Bias: to give a settled and often prejudiced outlook to

    Judging someone’s ability without knowing them, based solely on their appearance, is, like, kinda the definition of bias, discrimination, and prejudice. I think their stupid angle is “it’s not unfair because what if this time it really worked though!” 😅

    I know this is the point, but there’s no way this could possibly end up with anything other than a lazily written, comically clichéd, Sci Fi future where there’s an underclass of like “class gammas” who have gamma face, and then the betas that blah blah. Whereas the alphas are the most perfect ughhhhh. It’s not even a huge leap; it’s fucking inevitable. That’s the outcome of this.

    I should watch Gattaca again…

    • Tattorack@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      15
      ·
      3 hours ago

      Like every corporate entity, they’re trying to redefine what those words mean. See, it’s not “insufficient knowledge” if they’re using an AI powered facial recognition program to get an objective prediction, right? Right?

    • morriscox@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      3 hours ago

      People see me in cargo pants, polo shirt, a smartphone in my shirt pocket, and sometimes tech stuff in my (cargo) pants pockets and they assume that I am good at computers. I have an IT background and have been on the Internet since March of 1993 so they are correct. I call it the tech support uniform. However, people could dress similarly to try to fool people.

      People will find ways, maybe makeup and prosthetics or AI modifications, to try to fool this system. Maybe they will learn to fake emotions. This system is a tool, not a solution.

  • Bob Smith@sopuli.xyz
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    99
    ·
    edit-2
    5 hours ago

    Wow. If a black box analysis of arbitrary facial characteristics is more meritocratic than the status quo, that speaks volumes about the nightmare hellscape shitshow of policy, procedure and discretion that resides behind the current set of ‘metrics’ being used.

    • UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      19
      ·
      4 hours ago

      The gamification of hiring is largely a result of businesses de-institutionalizing Human Resources. If you were hired on at a company like Exxon or IBM in the 1980s, there was an enormous professionalized team dedicated to sourcing prospective hires, vetting them, and negotiating their employment.

      Now, we’ve automated so much of the process and gutted so much of the actual professionalized vetting and onboarding that its a total crap shoot as to whom you’re getting. Applicants aren’t trying to impress a recruiter, they’re just aiming to win the keyword search lottery. Businesses aren’t looking to cultivate talent long term, just fill contract positions at below-contractor rates.

      So we get an influx of pseudo-science to substitute for what had been a real sociological science of hiring. People promising quick and easy answers to complex and difficult questions, on the premise that they can accelerate the churn of staff without driving up cost of doing business.

      • Bob Smith@sopuli.xyz
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        11
        ·
        4 hours ago

        Gotcha. This is replacing one nonsense black box with a different one, then. That makes a depressing kind of sense. No evidence needed, either!

    • Bob Smith@sopuli.xyz
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      24
      ·
      5 hours ago

      All of that being typed, I’m aware that the ‘If’ in my initial response is doing the same amount of heavy lifting as the ‘Some might argue’ in the article. Barring the revelation of some truly extraordinary evidence, I don’t accept the premise.

    • technocrit@lemmy.dbzer0.com
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      8
      ·
      4 hours ago

      A primary application of “AI” is providing blackboxes that enable the extremely privileged to wield arbitrary control with impunity.

  • Tattorack@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    17
    ·
    3 hours ago

    Woaw, we skipped right from diversity hiring to phrenology hiring without wasting a single beat. Boy has the modern world become efreceint.

  • technocrit@lemmy.dbzer0.com
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    17
    ·
    edit-2
    4 hours ago

    It’s completely normal for fascists to promote pseudo-science. Always had been.

    Indeed their publication is named after one of the worst pseudo-sciences.

  • Boppel@feddit.org
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    16
    ·
    4 hours ago

    “okay, okay, hear me out: what if nazi methods, but for getting a job. we could even tattoo their number on their arms. it’s only consequent, we already devide by skin colour”

    WTF

  • oce 🐆@jlai.lu
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    21
    ·
    5 hours ago

    I looked for the original article, abstract:

    Human capital—encompassing cognitive skills and personality traits—is critical for labor market success, yet the personality component remains difficult to measure at scale. Leveraging advances in artificial intelligence and comprehensive LinkedIn data, we extract the Big 5 personality traits from facial images of 96,000 MBA graduates, and demonstrate that this novel" Photo Big 5" predicts school rank, compensation, job seniority, industry choice, job transitions, and career advancement. Using administrative records from top-tier MBA programs, we find that the Photo Big 5 exhibits only modest correlations with cognitive measures like GPA and standardized test scores, yet offers comparable incremental predictive power for labor outcomes. Unlike traditional survey-based personality measures, the Photo Big 5 is readily accessible and potentially less susceptible to manipulation, making it suitable for wide adoption in academic research and hiring processes. However, its use in labor market screening raises ethical concerns regarding statistical discrimination and individual autonomy.

    The PDF is downloadable here: https://scholar.google.com/citations?view_op=view_citation&hl=en&user=2eia4X4AAAAJ&sortby=pubdate&citation_for_view=2eia4X4AAAAJ%3A_FxGoFyzp5QC

    I don’t have the time nor the expertise to read everything to understand how they take into account the bias that good looking white men with educated parents are way more likely to succeed at life.

    • Arthur Besse@lemmy.mlOP
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      25
      ·
      4 hours ago

      one can also get the full paper directly from yale here without needing to solve a google captcha:

      https://insights.som.yale.edu/sites/default/files/2025-01/AI Personality Extraction from Faces Labor Market Implications_0.pdf

      I don’t have the time nor the expertise to read everything to understand how they take into account the bias that good looking white men with educated parents are way more likely to succeed at life.

      i admittedly did not read the entire 61 pages but i read enough to answer this:

      spoiler

      they don’t

      • underisk@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        edit-2
        5 minutes ago

        Lmao they source the photos from LinkedIn profiles. I’m sure that didn’t bias their training at all. Yes sir there’s no chance this thing is selecting for anything but facial features.

        Edit: double lmao they’re all MBAs

        Edit2: they didn’t even train the AI!! this paper is them just feeding linkedin photos into a third-party black-box API and then nodding thoughtfully at the results. i cant tell you how stupid the AI is because I can’t find any information about it or even the API mentioned in the paper.

    • usualsuspect191@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      2 hours ago

      I’m wondering if things like FAS (which can have certain facial characteristics) are muddling the results as well.

    • Maeve@kbin.earth
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      4 hours ago

      How many times has Big 5 been debunked yet employers still like it for reasons?