this post was submitted on 23 Jun 2026
95 points (99.0% liked)

Work Reform

16761 readers
111 users here now

A place to discuss positive changes that can make work more equitable, and to vent about current practices. We are NOT against work; we just want the fruits of our labor to be recognized better.

Our Philosophies:

Our Goals

founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
top 17 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] petrol_sniff_king@lemmy.blahaj.zone 23 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)
[–] craftrabbit@lemmy.zip 15 points 2 weeks ago

omg such surprise.,...

[–] Tollana1234567@lemmy.today 10 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago)

not really surprised, as certain jobs industry will hire certain demographics over others like, any receptionist jobs , they will screen out any male names. Also besides that so many people have reported on other forums that AI effectively locked them out of the field altogether after graduation, hence why you see reviews of certain universities how terrible the education/job finding was.

[–] FiniteBanjo@feddit.online 2 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago) (3 children)

So their source that 73% of global businesses use AI, at some point in the hiring process, is a site called CPA Practice Advisor who source their claim from MyPerfectResume™ which honestly it sounds kind of bogus to me.

Can that many people really be this stupid?

[–] lukstru@piefed.social 8 points 2 weeks ago

Yes, and even more can be lazy with annoying processes where they dont see the direct consequences oft their actions when they trust the system

[–] WhoIzDisIz@lemmy.today 4 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

If it's the cheapest modus operandi the bean counters can find to accomplish the task, you bet they can.

[–] FiniteBanjo@feddit.online -5 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago) (1 children)

Theres nothing cheap about hundreds of discrimination lawsuits, lmao.

AI racial bias is not a new thing.

[–] WhoIzDisIz@lemmy.today 9 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

They're outsourcing the logic to the AI provider, so they can pass the buck and proclaim innocence - in some cases it's even likely true.

[–] FiniteBanjo@feddit.online 1 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

In California, one such lawsuit was allowed to continhe by a judge. Proclaming innocence doesn't work when we have all known about AI racial bias and hallucinations for many years, we can reasonably show that they in all likelihood did know the same way a musician can prove the thief heard their song in a copyright case.

[–] WhoIzDisIz@lemmy.today 0 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

Glad to see that, but a single example does not a reliable precedent make — particularly under the current grip of the judicial system by conservatives.

[–] FiniteBanjo@feddit.online 0 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (1 children)

AI being new means you won't have precedent going back 20 years, mate. As I mentioned there is already precedent for proving the defendant was aware of the problematic behavior or risks due to such information being publicly available and commonly discussed.

Even if what you say is true and a bunch of conservative trump appointee hacks are fucking the judicial process up: you can't win them all and there are going to be metric assloads of these cases.

[–] WhoIzDisIz@lemmy.today 1 points 1 week ago (1 children)

...we have all known about AI racial bias and hallucinations for many years...

vs

AI being new...

Which is it?

What I said is demonstrably true, and - unless Thomas & Alito are dumb enough to stick things out past the current administration's ability to replace them - we are going to be suffering the effects of the stacked Supreme Court having the final word for quite some time.

[–] FiniteBanjo@feddit.online -2 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (1 children)

LLMs and even the other large dataset trained machine learning chatbots which directly preceded them going back over a decade have always displayed racial bias.

Companies using that technology to sort applicants hasn't been widespread for more than a couple of years.

What a bad faith question. Next time you pretend to be this stupid at least consider having some capability of observing the world you live in.

[–] WhoIzDisIz@lemmy.today 1 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago)

My, what an arrogant, assuming condescension. Maybe go out and touch grass. I'd shoot you down further, but I'm not as childish as you so I know not to bother wasting my time further. Maybe we'll talk when you outgrow your teenage-level testosterone-driven mentality. For now, blocked.

[–] middlemanSI@lemmy.world 3 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

Just imagine stupidity on a gauss curve. The average Joe is stupid as f. And then realize HALF of people are dumber than Joe.

[–] FiniteBanjo@feddit.online 0 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago) (1 children)

Yeah but even if half of Nepo Babies are mentally impaired they were all forced to go to expensive business schools.

[–] AngryCommieKender@lemmy.world 1 points 1 week ago

Many of them paid for those degrees, like Trump. He didn't earn a degree, he bought one.