 |
|
|
|||||
Companies are increasingly using AI to conduct job interviews, and, according to experts in the field, the technology is leading to some impressive results. However, giving candidates the choice between an AI interviewer or a human can create bias that makes landing a job tougher for some people, according to a new report. AI is now a common part of the job application process. According to the World Economic Forum, around 88% of employers use some form of AI for initial candidate screening such as filtering or ranking job applications. But AI is also being used to conduct interviews. Currently, around 21% of U.S. companies use the technology for initial interviews. AI interviewers can give companies an edge when during the hiring process. One study found that candidates who were interviewed by an AI were more likely to land a job than candidates who were sourced by humans screening résumés: 54% of candidates interviewed by AI got the job, compared to about 29% of candidates sourced by a traditional résumé screening. Still, there is a lot to learn about how utilizing AI interviews impacts both people and firms. Brian Jabarian, a researcher at the University of Chicago Booth School of Business with doctorates in economics and philosophy, recently examined what happens to candidates when they are offered a choice between an AI interviewer and a human interviewer, which he detailed in his paper, Choice as Signal: Designing AI Adoption in Labor Market Screening. The research, which has not been peer reviewed, finds giving candidates a choice between a human and AI interview could also create a new hurdle for low-ability candidatesapplicants whose skills are below the firms hiring threshold. Jabarian tells Fast Company that different applicants will automatically be drawn to either AI interviewers or human interviewers based on their strengths. For example, “applicants with strong language skills prefer human interviewers to highlight their English proficiency,” he says. “In contrast, applicants with strong analytical skills choose the AI interviewer to showcase their quantitative strengths.” But the choice isn’t neutral, like a candidate may expect it to be. An applicants decision to be interviewed by a human or an AI agent can reveal private information about their strengths, weaknesses, or expectations for relative performance, Jabarian writes in his paper, also pointing out that employees with high abilities benefit because companies can identify them more easily “using both the signal and the selection decision, increasing their probability of being hired. However, it also means firms are able to more easily identify low-ability workers. Jabarian writes: “Consequently, low-skilled workers succeed less often in obtaining a job and therefore experience a welfare loss.” Essentially, by interpreting both the choice itself as well as the information from the interview, an employers precision increases, which doesn’t serve lower-ability candidates. Jabarian says if firms had no insight into the candidate’s choice, then all workers would have the advantage of choosing which interviewer best shows their skill set, but companies would lose out on the advantages of using AI interviewers. While on the surface giving job candidates choices about how they are interviewed seems like a solid idea, Jabarian says that in practice, it’s not quite so simple. “Before this new paper, I was really rooting for giving this choice to people because I was confused about why everyone was assuming it was just okay to impose a new technology on people in a high-stakes environment when they maybe didnt want it,” he explains. However, now he believes it’s clear that the choice alone hurts the weakest candidates, and therefore it shouldn’t be one that is routinely offered but rather “on a case-by-case basis.” Jabarian says he expects AI interviewing to increase, particularly because its good for firms. Still, that doesn’t mean humans as interviewers are a thing of the past or irrelevant. AI interviewers and humans have different strengths: Human recruiters can improvise and are able to vary their interviews, while AI creates a consistent experience and is excellent at garnering information from candidates. That means adopting hybrid techniqueswhere humans and AI run interviews with opposing purposesmight really be the smartest and fairest way to hire.
Category:
E-Commerce
The Trump administration is planning to buy a direct stake in yet another chip technology company. Earlier this week, the Commerce Department announced that it had signed a letter of intent to buy up to $150 million of xLight, a startup that focuses on lithography, a critical part of the semiconductor-manufacturing process. The move shows that the governments nearly $9 billion dollar investment in Intel — for 10 percent stake in the company structured as a silent partnership — wasnt a one-off, and that officials are moving forward with plans to buy equity in technology companies it deems critical. As part of the latest deal, the startup will receive tens of millions in exchange for developing a prototype that would use free-laser electron technology to manufacture chips. The approach, if successful, would be a big deal, since it could provide an alternative to lithography equipment made by the Dutch company ASML, which is practically the only choice for chipmakers. For the US government, the hope is that the xLights technology could help produce extremely tiny — and highly sought after — transistors. “The right shareholder?” Under the Trump administration, the government has rapidly increased its ownership shares in private companies — a controversial strategy. A good number of conservative economists believe the government shouldnt be getting so involved in the private sector. Theres also concern that current investments dont reflect a consistent strategy, and could veer into favoritism for political friends. The Trump administration may also be risking taxpayer money as well, since theres no guarantee industrial policy investments will actually pan out. Is the government really going to be the right shareholder to help these companies succeed? Is the government going to start showing favoritism to these companies over companies that it doesnt own? Peter Harrell, from the Carnegie Endowment for Peace, recently told PBS. What are the kind of political requirements that are going to be put on companies that the government is taking an ownership in? In addition to xLight and Intel, new federal government investments now include millions in equity in mineral and steel firms, according to the New York Times. There were reports earlier this year that the Trump administration might even take a direct stake in quantum computing companies, though, when Fast Company asked, a senior official denied them. Further CHIPS entanglements Its true that Intel was unlikely to return to its former status as a leader in chips manufacturing based on the billions it would have received under the Biden administration alone, said one former employee at the Commerce Department-based CHIPS office, which was created under the CHIPS Act and helped oversee massive new subsidies for semiconductor companies. Still, the Trump administration buying direct equity in the company doesnt really achieve that goal, the person said. There might be a world in which the governments equity in xLight and Intel work in tandem, the person added. But do we really want the government telling Intel to use the startup the government invested in? (Notably, Pet Gelsinger, the former CEO of Intel, leads xLights board.) Regardless, xLight may not be the last of the Trump administrations investments in chip companies. This past September, the Chips Research and Development office, housed within the Commerce Department, released a broad agency announcement sharing that entities could apply for awards meant to boost the countrys microtechnology industry. That announcement stipulated that awardees might need to give the government equity, warrants, licenses to intellectual property, royalties or revenue sharing, or other such instruments to ensure a return on investment to the Government.
Category:
E-Commerce
Apple just lost a top design talent. Meta has hired Alan Dye, who was the head of Apple’s human interface design team. The company is filling his position with Stephen Lemay, who CEO Tim Cook told Bloomberg “has played a key role in the design of every major Apple interface since 1999.” Before being poached by Meta to become its chief design officer, Dye worked at Apple since 2006, where he oversaw projects including Liquid Glass and Vision Pro. By the end of his tenure, Dye reported directly to Cook. His departure is the latest in a game of musical chairs for top design roles at Apple. Apple’s former longtime chief design officer Jony Ive left the company in 2019, and his replacement, Evans Hankey, left in 2022 and wasn’t replaced. On the org chart, the remaining members of Apple’s industrial design team reported to COO Jeff Williams. Bloomberg reports that Dye will be creating a new design studio at Meta, where he’ll oversee the design for hardware, software, and AI integration for its interfaces. For Meta, Dye’s hiring is proof the company is serious about designing hardware that can compete in the ongoing race to build the first great AI gadget. It will put him in direct competition with his former colleague Ive, whose company io was bought by OpenAI in May for $6.4 billion with the goal of building the next great user interface.
Category:
E-Commerce
All news |
||||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||