[boscillator]

It will be fascinating to see the facts of this case, but if it is proven their algorithms are discriminatory, even by accident, I hope workday is held accountable. Making sure your AI doesn't violate obvious discrimination laws should be basic engineering practice, and the courts should help remind people of that.

[zugi]

An AI class that I took decades ago had just a 1 day session on "AI ethics". Somehow despite being short, it was memorable (or maybe because it was short...)

They said ethics demand that any AI that is going to pass judgment on humans must be able to explain its reasoning. An if-then rule says this, or even a statistical correlation between A and B indicates that would be fine. Fundamental fairness requires that if an automated system denies you a loan, a house, or a job, it be able to explain something you can challenge, fix, or at least understand.

LLMs may be able to provide that, but it would have to be carefully built into the system.

[nemomarx]

I'm sure you could get an LLM to create a plausible sounding justification for every decision? It might not be related to the real reason, but coming up with text isn't the hard part there surely

[rilindo]

> Fundamental fairness requires that if an automated system denies you a loan, a house, or a job, it be able to explain something you can challenge, fix, or at least understand.

That could get interesting, as most companies will not provide feedback if you are denied employment.

[direwolf20]

This is the law in the EU, I think

[ottah]

I hate this. An explanation is only meaningful if it comes with accountability, knowing why I was denied does me no good if I have no avenue for effective recourse outside of a lawsuit.

[candiddevmike]

Would love to see some of the liability transfer to the companies using Workday too...