Daily Arxiv

This is a page that curates AI-related papers published worldwide.
All content here is summarized using Google Gemini and operated on a non-profit basis.
Copyright for each paper belongs to the authors and their institutions; please make sure to credit the source when sharing.

No Thoughts Just AI: Biased LLM Hiring Recommendations Alter Human Decision Making and Limit Human Autonomy

Created by
  • Haebom

Author

Kyra Wilson, Mattea Sim, Anna-Maria Gueorguieva, Aylin Caliskan

Outline

This study analyzed the impact of racial bias in artificial intelligence (AI) models on human hiring decisions through an experiment with 528 participants. In 1,526 scenarios across 16 high- and low-status jobs, applicants were evaluated against AI models that were differentially biased based on race (White, Black, Hispanic, and Asian). The results showed that when the AI favored a particular race, people tended to favor that race up to 90% of the time. Even when people perceived the AI's recommendations as low quality or unimportant, they were still influenced by the AI's biases in certain situations. Pre-administering an Implicit Association Test (IAT) increased the likelihood of selecting applicants who did not match common race-status stereotypes by 13%.

Takeaways, Limitations

Takeaways:
Shows that racial bias in AI can significantly impact human decision-making.
Raising concerns about human autonomy in AI-HITL (Human-in-the-loop) scenarios.
Takeaways provides information on the design and evaluation of AI recruitment systems and bias mitigation strategies.
Emphasizes the need for organizational and regulatory policies that take into account the complexity of AI-HITL decision-making.
Suggests the possibility of mitigating bias by utilizing tools such as the IAT.
Limitations:
The artificial aspects of the experimental environment may cause differences from real-world situations.
Because AI bias can vary in type and intensity, further research is needed to determine the generalizability of the results of this study.
Lack of analysis of differences in results based on participant characteristics (e.g., age, gender, occupation).
👍