According to a confidential internal document viewed by Recode, Amazon has been working on an ... [ ] Automated Applicant Evaluation system that will determine which job applicants possess the most potential for success. Instead of humans reading your résumé, artificial intelligence technology is equipped to do the job. But can it do it well? Last week, Amazon offered buyouts to its recruiters and could look to replace them with artificial technology software. This is in addition to the projected thousands of people who will be let go from the giant online retailer.

But the requirement has posed some compliance challenges. Unlike familiar financial audits, refined over decades of accounting experience, the AI audit process is new and without clearly established guidelines. Our Morning Risk Report features insights and news on governance, risk and compliance. "There is a major concern, which is it's not clear exactly what constitutes an AI audit," said Andrew Burt, managing partner at AI-focused law firm BNH. "If you are an organization that's using some type of these tools…it can be pretty confusing."

Dozens of firms within the UK, from Unilever to Deloitte, have used synthetic intelligence (AI) to analyse the language, tone and even facial expressions of candidates when they're requested a set of equivalent job questions which they movie on their cell phone or laptop computer. The algorithms choose the most effective candidates by assessing their performances within the movies towards tens of 1000's of items of linguistic and facial info compiled from earlier interviews of those that have gone on to show to be good on the job. Hirevue, a US firm which has developed AI interview expertise, claims it permits hiring corporations to interview extra candidates within the preliminary stage slightly than merely counting on CVs and that it offers a extra dependable and goal indicator of future efficiency freed from human bias. Dozens of firms together with Deloitte, Nationwide Grid, Tesco, Jet2, Grant Thornton, AstraZeneca, Channel 4 and even the Authorities's Division for Enterprise, Vitality and Industrial Technique have used Hirevue, in accordance with its shopper checklist seen by The Telegraph. Nevertheless, John Edwards, the knowledge commissioner, mentioned the usage of AI for interviews would now be investigated due to considerations that the businesses could possibly be deploying such AI expertise for interviews "with out doing due diligence".

The way we apply for jobs has changed radically over the last 20 years, thanks to the arrival of sprawling online job-posting boards like LinkedIn, Indeed, and ZipRecruiter, and the use by hiring organizations of artificial intelligence (AI) algorithms to screen the tsunami of résumés that now gush forth from such sites into human resources (HR) departments. With video-based online job interviews now harnessing AI to analyze candidates' use of language and their performance in gamified aptitude tests, recruitment is becoming a decidedly algorithmic affair. Yet all is not well in HR's brave new world. After quizzing 8,000 job applicants and 2,250 hiring managers in the U.S., Germany, and Great Britain, researchers at Harvard Business School, working with the consultancy Accenture, discovered that many tens of millions of people are being barred from consideration for employment by résumé screening algorithms that throw out applicants who do not meet an unfeasibly large number of requirements, many of which are utterly irrelevant to the advertised job. For instance, says Joe Fuller, the Harvard professor of management practice who led the algorithmic hiring research, nurses and graphic designers who need merely to use computers have been barred from progressing to job interviews for not having experience, or degrees, in computer programming.

The so-called Great Resignation, a mass restructuring of the workforce that coincided with the coronavirus pandemic, continues to loom large for companies, with surveys of corporate leadership showing staffing issues remain among the most pressing near-term risks. Many have turned to AI to bulk up their recruitment muscle, despite perennial warnings from regulators and experts of the potential for algorithms to effectively learn from and then magnify human biases. Proponents, though, argue that removing the human element can actually help. Output from AI can be readily audited, and computers stripped of some of the hidden biases that can lurk in a person's mind. A computer doesn't have a hometown, didn't go to college and doesn't have hobbies, so won't unconsciously warm to a friendly candidate the way a real recruiter might. Our Morning Risk Report features insights and news on governance, risk and compliance.

AI algorithms employed in everything from hiring to lending to criminal justice have a persistent and often invisible problem with bias. The big picture: One solution could be audits that aim to determine whether an algorithm is working as intended, whether it's disproportionately affecting different groups of people and, if there are problems, how they can be fixed. How it works: Algorithmic audits -- usually conducted by outside companies -- involve examining an algorithm's code and the data used to train it, and assessing its potential impact on populations through interviews with stakeholders and those who might be affected by it. Between the lines: Financial audits exist in part to open up the black box of a company's internal operations to outside investors, and ensure that a company remains in compliance with financial laws and regulations. Details: Algorithmic audits can help companies screen their AI products for flaws that may not be apparent at first glance.

In the past, hiring decisions were made by people. Today, some key decisions that lead to whether someone gets a job or not are made by algorithms. The use of AI-based job interviews has increased since the pandemic. As demand increases, so too do questions about whether these algorithms make fair and unbiased hiring decisions, or find the most qualified applicant. In this second episode of a four-part series on AI in hiring, we meet some of the big players making this technology including the CEOs of HireVue and myInterview--and we test some of these tools ourselves. This miniseries on hiring was reported by Hilke Schellmann and produced by Jennifer Strong, Emma Cillekens, Karen Hao and Anthony Green with special thanks to James Wall. Jennifer: Work… is a big part of our lives. It's how most of us pay our bills, feed our families… and put a roof over our heads. Michelle Rogers: "A permanent job would mean stability. You need something to keep you going and to keep you fresh." Dora Lespier: "Like being able to take my daughter being able to get whatever she needs. Henry Claypool: "You know, it's, it's a big part of my identity. It's what I do a lot.

LOS ANGELES – Since graduating from a U.S. university four years ago, Kevin Carballo has lost count of the number of times he has applied for a job only to receive a swift, automated rejection email -- sometimes just hours after applying. Like many job seekers around the world, Carballo's applications are increasingly being screened by algorithms built to automatically flag attractive applicants to hiring managers. "There's no way to apply for a job these days without being analyzed by some sort of automated system," said Carballo, 27, who is Latino and the first member of his family to go to university. "It feels like shooting in the dark while being blindfolded -- there's just no way for me to tell my full story when a machine is assessing me," Carballo, who hoped to get work experience at a law firm before applying to law school, said by phone. From artificial intelligence programs that assess an applicant's facial expressions during a video interview, to resume screening platforms predicting job performance, the AI recruitment industry is valued at more than $500 million.

Many companies have turned to artificial intelligence to lead hiring processes and cherry-pick job applicants… Welcome to the'Wild West of Hiring.' Pixabay When Emily applied for her dream job, she expected to ace her interview. She knew the company inside and out and had prepared to explain why she would be perfect for the role. When she received an invitation to a video platform that would record her responses to a series of questions, she was slightly thrown--she was applying for a people-facing role and had hoped to be able to build rapport with the hiring manager. Still, she hoped that she could still show her personality, even in pre-recorded clips. What Emily didn't realize until after the interview was that the third-party company that hosted the video software used facial analysis technology to screen candidates.

For more than a decade, journalists and researchers have been writing about the dangers of relying on algorithms to make weighty decisions: who gets locked up, who gets a job, who gets a loan--even who has priority for COVID-19 vaccines. Rather than remove bias, one algorithm after another has codified and perpetuated it, as companies have simultaneously continued to more or less shield their algorithms from public scrutiny. The big question ever since: How do we solve this problem? Lawmakers and researchers have advocated for algorithmic audits, which would dissect and stress-test algorithms to see how they work and whether they're performing their stated goals or producing biased outcomes. And there is a growing field of private auditing firms that purport to do just that.