Jump to content
Banner by ~ Ice Princess Silky

technology Imagine a computer, not a human, deciding whether you'll get the job.


Twilight Sparkle ✨

Recommended Posts

Source: Evolv and The Wharton School use ‘big data’ to predict when you will quit your job (VentureBeat)

 


Take a read through that article. From a technological perspective, what Evolv has come up with in their algorithm is pretty impressive - apparently, it can predict with stunning accuracy how loyal a prospective employee will be to a company.

 

It raises some far-reaching implications, however: corporations and large companies are already perceived as soulless conglomerates that run after only one thing - getting as much money as possible for as little risk as possible (how true that is is another topic for another time, but that is what most people seem to think of big companies).

 

Will widespread adoption of algorithm-based employment revolutionize business by matching people to their dream jobs at companies they'll work really well with, or will it only make the unemployed feel even more faceless and uncared-for?

  • Brohoof 6
Link to comment
Share on other sites

However much we dream, there is no algorithm that can decode human behavior. And even if they do use an algorithm, if anything, it will destroy more jobs than it creates, for they will be picking the best, and only the best, to work. That, and the fact that it creates something that can be fiddled with by hackers and bugged and all of that. It creates a factor that can be messed with.

 

And that, while a noble idea, will not work. Sorry, Oh Great And Powerful Feld0 AKA Twilight Sparkle AKA Peter.

  • Brohoof 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Human beings are not predictable creatures. We do things that are out of character, and we are always generally changing, anyway. No computer will be able to predict these kinds of things; it's pretty much trying to predict the future, which is just flat out impossible.

 

(Keep in mind, I said TL;DR, and don't know what it's actually about. c: )

Edited by Sugar Plum
  • Brohoof 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I feel like in a world where there's so much unemployment, the last thing we need is a computer to decide whether or not you get a job.

 

We're already so dependent on technology. I for one don't want a machine making the ultimate decision of whether or not I get a job. I want a human to do that.

 

If this is really what we're headed for, I think we're going in the wrong direction. And who knows. Maybe this whole thing will actually be beneficial and provide more jobs to people who are unemployed and actually want to work. But for right now, it just sounds risky.

 

Just my opinion.

  • Brohoof 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

They already have specific types of psychologists to analyze such factors, and improve them in the workplace. The technology isn't exactly necessary. Anyway, if one knows they're going to be analyzed by the computer, they could just lie or bend the truth to make themselves appear better, deceiving the machine. For example, one could make or delete social media accounts to make yourself seem like they're more loyal. Also human behavior varies pretty greatly, and though one can make general predictions, they are not always correct. I don't see this technology being very beneficial.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't believe that study at all. The last company i worked for I actually gave it my all. I brought the company more business, I did some the best quality work they had, I made sure to always fill out the enormous amounts of paperwork, I voiced my opinions on what would make things easier and more efficient. With that last one, I even ran ideas by other employees to see what they would say and if they too liked the idea, i'd run it by management. With that last statement, is where things started getting interesting and why i don't have a job. I knew one of the owners fairly well and always shared ideas with him. I loved the company and i could tell the owner i shared stuff with he too, loved his company. I can see the passion and hear it in his voice whenever he talked about the company.

 

So why am i out of a job? The company didn't love me back. After three years, and listening to all the employees i worked beside complain about a lot of things, I was late for a meeting because of traffic. As I entered the meeting, I simply could not believe my ears. As the owner was asking for suggestions for the company, I watched and listened as everyone lied and said everything was fine and going great. I saw people offered positions I mentioned in my yearly review that i was interested in that were only a year old in the company and not nearly as detailed and competent.

 

I don't even know what came over me.... but I had an emotional blow out... I lost it and had to go outside and cry. It was the one company I loved and gave it my all. And all i could see was dishonesty on all levels, my coworkers, my boss, and even the owner not only didn't know how to deal with my emotions, but felt i was over reacting.... So after validating fact after fact and finally pointing out that it all formed a single idea that my company didn't love me.

 

It hurt... sometimes i think about it... and even now I don't always know what to feel... I've stated in my blog that know the law of attraction... I used it to help bring the company more business... and all i get is a $25 gift card and walking papers as thankyou for being a model employee. Well, after everything I had seen about corporate greed, mismanagement, moral, etc.... All I can say is that from the bottom of my heart... I gave it my all for once in my whole life.... and i gave it with love... and i didn't get back.... It's not me that doesn't deserved to work there... it's the company that doesn't deserve to have me....

 

Sorry for the long post but I don't have to look that far an any company to start seeing what's going on after awhile and it's one of the hardest things i've ever had to try and not be bitter about it. I forgive them and wish them well anyways and hope they see one day what i did for them, or at least tried to do for them.

Edited by Feld0
Added some paragraph spacing.
  • Brohoof 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Human beings are not predictable creatures. We do things that are out of character, and we are always generally changing, anyway. No computer will be able to predict these kinds of things; it's pretty much trying to predict the future, which is just flat out impossible.

 

(Keep in mind, I said TL;DR, and don't know what it's actually about. c: )

 

If you can't predict a group of people then you fan force race mixing and indoctrination till they're nothing but a bunch of obedient slaves.I learned enough psychology and propaganda to know that the overwhelming majority of humans can be manipulated to do anything.

Edited by khaine21x3
  • Brohoof 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is already being done in lower-level retail positions in America. When somebody applies for a store job with Walmart, Best Buy, or any other big-name company like them, they first have to complete a questionnaire that's more or less a social skills test. The manager of the store won't receive your application for review or even be made aware that you applied for a position at the store unless a program approves you first. What I just read in that article is a more sophisticated version of that test that looks at your past rather than asking you questions, and is used for every level of business. I hate it. People's skills progress at different rates and are sometimes held back by envious supervisors, something for which no test can account because that kind of data will never be found in a log. And some people who have certain talents would never get a shot at anything without compassion being the key factor in giving them a chance.

 

Here's one thing that really jumped out at me:

 

Evolv’s in-house data science team will extract information from a number of different sources including termination history and performance data, then combine it with relevant econometrics, like gas prices and nationwide unemployment rates.

This section is one of my biggest concerns. All of the above I expected; termination and performance history are both relevant when considering a prospective employee. Here's the (potential) problem: are they only going to research the applicant's termination history, or will they also review the termination history of a company that let them go? I think we're all aware that some companies will terminate individuals, either by layoff or by firing them over a pissant issue, should their salary reach a certain threshold, only to bring in somebody who will do the same job more or less with the same quality but for less money. Layoffs aren't considered when reviewing an applicant's history, but firings are a major factor in rejections. If in Evolv's investigation they find that somebody was fired from a previous position, they should also pull statistics on that company's turnover rate as a whole, within the department in which the applicant worked, and the most frequently cited reasons for termination. I don't foresee that much consideration being given, though.

 

With gas prices being added to the criteria, I'm more glad than ever that I moved last year. It was at least 30 miles to the nearest town with jobs to be had, and if they would have to consider that kind of haul when making a hiring decision then nobody would give me a job. Good thing I'm not in the boonies anymore.

  • Brohoof 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Couldn't get a job at Kroger or Publix, they used computers for my job interview. Got a job as an office assistant at a law firm, and my employer knew me outside of work, knew who I actually was.

 

You need that human element in hiring people, HAL 9000 cannot make the proper judgements.

  • Brohoof 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Computers don't have emotions, there is no way to program emotion into a computer, the computer only interperts what it is told to do, simple. There's no way a computer can accurately tell a prospective employer that an employee is a good fit, only the interview can.

 

When I was last looking for a job, 2 places, Weis Market (Grocery store) and Office Depot required me to take this computerized test before I got an interview. 2 hours wasted, because the computer felt I wasn't a right fit, and this was over generic questions. For example, "What would I do in a robbery?" I dunno, it really, really depends, if the robber didn't have a weapon, I'd do what I need to do to get him away from me, if he had a gun, I'd cooperate, if the manager was right next to me... and so on and so forth.

 

I really liked the way Walmart did it, for such a low paying job, they have a pretty rigourous interview process. I went through 2 interviews with 2 different sets of people, and was asked questions about previous work experience, team work, etc, basically, the same thing the computer did, but I could provide a better response than just "Yes" or "No." Anyway, it took about 2 hours and I did get the job. It made me feel like a person, not a tool (That sure changed over 3 years...) and it allowed me to learn more about my potential job.

 

Anyway, I don't think a computer should be put in the position of a human. Only a human can interperet feelings and emotions accurately. It might cost money, but it will ensure that you get the best fit for the job. A computer might give someone a job, and they won't even know what to do! Granted, it is a cool concept.

  • Brohoof 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wait, so if a computer is now the judge if you get a job or not, doesn't that make the hacker's world that much more powerful? I wouldn't be for it, it also sounds a little unfair, especially if the system messes up, than who is still jobless?

Edited by Retro_Derpy
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Technology can do some pretty amazing things but human behavior is far too complicated for any computer to calculate 100% it seems like this kind of technology would do far more harm than good. Most companies at best treat their employees like a number so the prospect of a computer being the judge as to whether or not someone gets hired is very unsettling to me, it just seems to further the idea that you are not a person but some number. Of course sadly that is how most companies see their employees as numbers, I myself have learned that the hard way.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

i've applied to numerous jobs that have required long psychological tests, typically in the form of polarising questions. They're anoying.

the same basic 5 questions are asked, over and over. reworded to be contextually different each time.

 

The only thing these tests are truly filtering for are people who are adept at lying, with an essentially sociopathic seperation of emotion from context. I doubt this is the intent, but the methodology absolutely favours this behaviour in all positive results.

 

though, maybe that is what an ideal employee is? A lying psycopath?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

i've applied to numerous jobs that have required long psychological tests, typically in the form of polarising questions. They're anoying.

the same basic 5 questions are asked, over and over. reworded to be contextually different each time.

 

The only thing these tests are truly filtering for are people who are adept at lying, with an essentially sociopathic seperation of emotion from context. I doubt this is the intent, but the methodology absolutely favours this behaviour in all positive results.

 

though, maybe that is what an ideal employee is? A lying psycopath?

 

A lying sociopath tends to be the most successful employee as well as the most likely future competitor as they have the intelligence required to fool everyone while still performing their jobs adequately.The filter is probably meant to keep intellectually superior individuals so they cannot be a future competitor.

Edited by khaine21x3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

This really highlights a lot of the problems with modern day American capitalism. Instead of a co-operative enterprise where the community works towards the common good, or as I like to call it capitalism with a soul, we have lost our compassion. Increasingly, we only care for efficiency, not trying to help the average man off the street in a tough economy. In a world in which most are suffering, we have limited our empathy to, in many cases, just ourselves and drowned out the cries of the less fortunate. It is high time we express out humanness and understanding rather than become cold and calculating.

Edited by TheEngineer
Link to comment
Share on other sites

This really highlights a lot of the problems with modern day American capitalism. Instead of a co-operative enterprise where the community works towards the common good, or as I like to call it capitalism with a soul, we have lost our compassion. Increasingly, we only care for efficiency, not trying to help the average man off the street in a tough economy. In a world in which most are suffering, we have limited our empathy to, in many cases, just ourselves and drowned out the cries of the less fortunate. It is high time we express out humanness and understanding rather than become cold and calculating.

 

It's probably the same in any capitalist country.The workers are nothing more than disposable tools and they will be replaced with people who are willing to work for less.The homeless man could probably get a job if he's willing to work for wages below the market price.

 

Outsourcing and the use of illegal aliens have caused more goods to be produced and the prices to drop.Your Iphone would probably cost $5000 if every single part was manufactured in America under unionized factories.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's probably the same in any capitalist country.The workers are nothing more than disposable tools and they will be replaced with people who are willing to work for less.The homeless man could probably get a job if he's willing to work for wages below the market price.

 

Outsourcing and the use of illegal aliens have caused more goods to be produced and the prices to drop.Your Iphone would probably cost $5000 if every single part was manufactured in America under unionized factories.

 

The iPhone probably wouldn't cost that much, but I'd still accept somewhat more; perhaps 1.5 to 2 times the original amount. Also, I love it when companies are about to go under and CEOs give themselves massive pay raises which actually happened when Hostess went under recently. Not all corporations are shady, but many do engage in ethically problematic practices like CEO pay raises or outsourcing jobs and then paying workers pennies on the dollar.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The iPhone probably wouldn't cost that much, but I'd still accept somewhat more; perhaps 1.5 to 2 times the original amount. Also, I love it when companies are about to go under and CEOs give themselves massive pay raises which actually happened when Hostess went under recently. Not all corporations are shady, but many do engage in ethically problematic practices like CEO pay raises or outsourcing jobs and then paying workers pennies on the dollar.

 

We are taught that there is no such thing as morality under capitalism, our selfish desires and greed will ensure as many job creation as possible and a worker making a penny per hour is still better than an unemployed individual on the brink of starvation.The massive profits we make will end up benefiting society as we invest them and create more jobs.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We are taught that there is no such thing as morality under capitalism, our selfish desires and greed will ensure as many job creation as possible and a worker making a penny per hour is still better than an unemployed individual on the brink of starvation.The massive profits we make will end up benefiting society as we invest them and create more jobs.

 

As has been put before, there is a problem when people are kept "alive and yet not alive" as in barely able to survive. Also, it is simply not true that the massive profits always go back to the economy when people are exploited. Caterpillar, the construction company, recently had windfall profits, what did they do with them? They cut back jobs and workers benefits. Hostess, as I just spoke about, recently went under, what did the CEO do? He gave himself a massive bonus. Citibank is really having a hard time, what did their CEO do when they were struggling? He gave himself a massive bonus. More profits do not always translate into more jobs, as the owners of corporations would like one to believe. Even when they do, the jobs are not in the US but in other nations where, sometimes, children (like in the case of FoxConn and Apple) are put into wage labor. If corporations actually gave people a living wage (say 9-10 dollars an hour) and complied with international law and weren't rewarded when they shipped jobs overseas this would not be an issue. But I cannot support children working in factories for minimum pay and barely being able to live.

Edited by TheEngineer
Link to comment
Share on other sites

this would not be an issue. But I cannot support children working in factories for minimum pay and barely being able to live.

 

Those countries have no welfare system and the children would starve if they don't work making Branded stuff for western consumers.Welfare would be out of the question for poorer countries in Africa and many parts of Asia.I personally see nothing wrong with child labor but they there are certain job such as miners, soldiers which they should not be allowed to do, I see nothing wrong with them making Iphones and shoes.

 

Most charity organizations are corrupt and most of the money don't reach those poor starving kids so I rather they keep their jobs and feed themselves than to rely on foreign charity.

 

Those corporations might've cut jobs but they probably invested the money somewhere else and create different jobs?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Those countries have no welfare system and the children would starve if they don't work making Branded stuff for western consumers.Welfare would be out of the question for poorer countries in Africa and many parts of Asia.I personally see nothing wrong with child labor but they there are certain job such as miners, soldiers which they should not be allowed to do, I see nothing wrong with them making Iphones and shoes.

 

Most charity organizations are corrupt and most of the money don't reach those poor starving kids so I rather they keep their jobs and feed themselves than to rely on foreign charity.

 

Those corporations might've cut jobs but they probably invested the money somewhere else and create different jobs?

 

You see, though, you are taking the status quo as prescriptive; as though it defines what we should do. We have other choices than trying to appease the corporations in every way possible including allowing them to break ethical codes. There are smaller businesses which tend to be more honest which people can work for and encouraging their development is extremely important. Children shouldn't starve anyways, their parents should make enough to provide for them and, again, look whose fault it is that their parents are paid enough; transnational corporations. It all comes down to a variety of factors: corporations like Apple (and by extension FoxConn) need to abide by international law, China needs new labor laws that are actually enforced, and the government needs to stop looking the other way when laws are broken and loopholes created by corporations.

 

I understand your concern for the economy, I really, do, but there are other ways to change the system for the better and ensure that children don't have to work in factories instead of learning in schools.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You see, though, you are taking the status quo as prescriptive; as though it defines what we should do. We have other choices than trying to appease the corporations in every way possible including allowing them to break ethical codes. There are smaller businesses which tend to be more honest which people can work for and encouraging their development is extremely important. Children shouldn't starve anyways, their parents should make enough to provide for them and, again, look whose fault it is that their parents are paid enough; transnational corporations. It all comes down to a variety of factors: corporations like Apple (and by extension FoxConn) need to abide by international law, China needs new labor laws that are actually enforced, and the government needs to stop looking the other way when laws are broken and loopholes created by corporations.

 

I understand your concern for the economy, I really, do, but there are other ways to change the system for the better and ensure that children don't have to work in factories instead of learning in schools.

 

What about more extreme cases like certain African countries that make shoes? the government can't afford welfare and the entire country would go bankrupt if the multinational corporations move away due to labor laws and minimal wages.

 

There are lots of sweatshops in US/EU that uses illegal aliens too and the corporations have the power to elect your politicians so they won't crackdown on them.

Edited by khaine21x3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

What about more extreme cases like certain African countries that make shoes? the government can't afford welfare and the entire country would go bankrupt if the multinational corporations move away due to labor laws and minimal wages.

 

There are lots of sweatshops in US/EU that uses illegal aliens too and the corporations have the power to elect your politicians so they won't crackdown on them.

 

I see this as similar to the problems of colonialism. Certainly, on one hand, colonialism did provide a new structure and a way to live; but it was, in many ways, oppressive to the indigenous peoples of the areas that were colonized. Today still, we can see the consequences of colonialism and the drawing up of arbitrary borders (largely by the Western powers) in many nations; namely in the case of Israel and Palestine. Countries need the help of international organizations which care about their human rights and progress, not those which are there because they have neither. The reason those countries don't have effective laws and a more stable society is because the laws are rarely enforced and most people in sub-Saharan Africa associate the police with brutality rather than benevolence and order. Having a government (which includes police, the military, etc) which the people trust and which puts it trust in the people is the most important issue right now.

 

Consider this: who has a vested interest in keeping reasonable labor laws out of these countries? Who would lose out if a stable government improved people's lives by creating an orderly, prosperous society where the people started demanding a wage that can keep enough food on the table for a meager, but comfortable, life?

 

You and I both know the answer to those questions.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Join the herd!

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...