The idea of AI automated job interviews sickens me. How little of a fuck do you have to give about applicants that you can’t even be bothered to have even a single person interview them??
But god forbid the applicant didn’t spend hours researching every little detail about a company, writing a perfect letter with information that could have just been bullet points and being able to explain exactly why they absolutely love the company and why it’s been their dream to work there since they were a child. Or even worse: Use AI to write the application.
We should build an AI that automates researching about a company for applicants
The real “No U” of AI…
Cover letters fucking make me hateful. I love generating AI cover letters and sending them. Fuck your cover letters in a market where you need to send 100 applications to get 10 bites
Exactly!
Applicants are expected to dedicated hours of their time to writing their application and performing background research - both of which are becoming increasingly more tedious over time - so the least a company could bloody do is show some basic respect by paying an actual human being to come interview you!
Reminds me of an early application of AI where scientists were training an AI to tell the difference between a wolf and a dog. It got really good at it in the training data, but it wasn’t working correctly in actual application. So they got the AI to give them a heatmap of which pixels it was using more than any other to determine if a canine is a dog or a wolf and they discovered that the AI wasn’t even looking at the animal, it was looking at the surrounding environment. If there was snow on the ground, it said “wolf”, otherwise it said “dog”.
Early chess engine that used AI, were trained by games of GMs, and the engine would go out of its way to sacrifice the queen, because when GMs do it, it’s comes with a victory.
Why would you use AI for chess?
You don’t use it for the rule-set and allowable moves, but to score board positions.
For a chess computer calculating all possible moves until the end of the game is not possible in the given time, because the number of potential moves grows exponentially with each further move. So you need to look at a few, and try to reject bad ones early, so that you only calculate further along promising paths.
So you need to be able to say what is a better board position and what is a worse one. It’s complex to determine - in general - whether a position is better than another. Of course it is, otherwise everyone would just play the “good” positions, and chess would be boring like solved games e.g. Tic-Tac-Toe.
Now to have your chess computer estimate board positions you can construct tons of rules and heuristics with expert knowledge to hopefully assign sensible values to positions. People do this. But you can also hope that there is some machine learnable patterns in the data that you can discover by feeding historical games and the information on who won into an ML model. People do this too. I think both are fair approaches in this instance.
You can calculate all possible moves in milliseconds on any silicone these dsys
All possible moves one step from a given position sure.
But if you then take all possible resulting positions and calculate all moves from there, and then take all possible resulting positions after that second move and calculate all possible third moves from there, and so on, then the possibilities explode so much in number that you can’t calculate them anymore. That’s the exponential part I was refering to.
You can try and estimate them roughly, let’s say you’re somewhere in the middle of the game, there are 12 units of each side still alive. About half are pawns so we take 1.2 possible moves for them, for the others, well let’s say around 8, thats a bit much for horses and the king on average, but probably a bit low for other units. So 6 times 8 and 6 times 1.2, lets call it 55 possibilities. So the first move there are 55 possible positions, for the second you have to consider all of them and their new possibilitues so there are 55 times 55 or 3025, for the third thats 166375, then 9.15 million, 500 million, 27.6 billion, 1.5 trillion etc. That last one was only 7 moves in the future. Most games won’t be finished by then from a given position, so you either need a scoring function or you’re running out of time.
Yep, those are the moves that can all be easily calculated very quickly on modern hardware
There are more possible chess moves (estimated at 10^120 for an average game) than there are atoms in the observable universe (estimated at 10^80). That is to say the number of possible chess moves has 40 more zeros on the end than the number of atoms in the observable universe.
Can you point to some souce showing how modern hardware can work these out easily?
Reg, why’d you just stab yourself in the shoulder?
Ah cmon, ain’t ya ever seen a movie?
Well of course I’ve seen a movie, but what the hell are ya doing?
Every time the guy stabs himself in a movie, it’s right before he kicks the piss outta the guy he’s fightin’!
Well that don’t… when that happens, the guys gotta plan Reg, what the hell’s your plan?
I dunno, but I’m gonna find out!
One of my favorite examples is when a company from India (I think?) trained their model to regulate subway gates. The system was supposed to analyze footage and open more gates when there were more people, and vice versa. It worked well until one holiday when there were no people, but all gates were open. They eventually discovered that the system was looking at the clock visible on the video, rather than the number of people.
That reminds me of the time, quite a few years ago, Amazon tried to automate resume screening. They trained a machine learning model with anonymized resumes and whether the candidate was hired. Then they looked at what the AI was looking at. The model had trained itself on how to reject women.
I really hate that we are calling this wave of technology “AI”, because it isn’t. It is “Machine Learning” sure, but it is just brute force pattern recognition v2.0.
The desired outcomes you define and then the data you train it on both have a LOT of built-in biases.
It’s a cool technology I guess, but it’s being misused across the board. It is being overused and misused by every company with FOMO. Hoping to get some profit edge on the competition. How about we have AI replace the bullshit CEO and VP positions instead of trying to replace fast food drive through workers and Internet content.
I guess that’s nothing new for humans… One human invents the spear for fishing and the rest use them to hit each other over the head.
I agree with most of your points, but i don’t entirely like the “this is not intelligence” line of thought. We don’t even know yet how to define intelligence, and pattern recognition sounds a LOT like what our brains do. The hype is of course ridiculous, and the ways it’s being used is just stupid, but i do think pattern recognition could be a solid basis for whatever we end up considering intelligence.
All you are saying is, is that intelligence isnt as smart as we think, that human intelligence is actually pretty dumb. That doesnt change anything about the current situation even if thats true though.
So we all agree its actually human level intelligence now, what then? Can we stop developing it and do something else now?
Lol, wtf XD
“That doesnt change anything about the current situation even if thats true though.”
Yeah, i assumed me writing “I agree with most of your points” conveyed that. Do you always imagine random things to attack instead of just reading what people actually write?
wtf O_o
I just don’t like people being like “but it’s not real intelligence” while we don’t even know what intelligence is, and we’re thus avoiding the one part of this stupid hype that could be interesting:: philosophical questions about our own intelligence/humanity/…
Do you always argue the most boring parts of any issue as a rule? You win the argument, congratulations I hope it changes the world.
Do you always change the topic to try and “win” online discussions? And act so unnecessarily hostile for no reason at all to people who want to have interesting online discussions?
I find the topic of whether it’s intelligence the most interesting part of this. It raises a lot of questions. That the current hype is ridiculous that a lot of the energy expended on it is a complete waste, and that most of the ways AI is used is beyond stupid isn’t even worth talking about, that’s just plain obvious.
I think you might be projecting your own hostility there.
And you are just hijacking the AI conversation to argue about what the word intelligence means. I thought you wanted to talk about AI thats why I originally replied. When I realized you just wanted to apparently correct the public about their use of your favorite word, I decided this wasnt worth it.
Its sort of like you went to a bowling forum, and were very excited to discuss the mineral contents of the oil on the bowling lane, but got upset when noone cared to discuss with you because they just want to talk about bowling.
Dude, just stop. You’re looking for things that aren’t there. Period.
I find it an interesting question whether it’s intelligent or not, and find it sad people throw out that question together with the rest of the hype. It’s not “my favourite word”, and i’m not projecting my hostility. You just can’t seem to handle someone bringing any bit of nuance to a discussion…
And me projecting hostility XD. yeahhhh… introspection isn’t one of your gifts it seems XD. I’m the one being hostile XD. roflmao XD. I mean just here “your favorite word”… wtf dude, exaggerate much to make yet another pointless jab at me?? I’m not allowed to find this an interesting question without you painting me as someone who fixates on that one thing in the world and makes it sound as if my world revolves around “AI IS INTELLIGENT!!!”… I’m not even convinced it is, but i find it a mighty interesting question that requires more thought than it’s getting.
Sorry for trying to argue something i find interesting on lemmy. I’ll just shut up next time and not try to bring up points you might not find interesting since you seem to take that as a personal offence, while you could have just shut up and let the adults have a nice conversation on the one interesting part of this hype.
“Bias automation” is kind of an accurate description for how our brains learn things too.
The base assumption is that you can tell anything reliable at all about a person from their body language, speech patterns, or appearance. So many people think they have an intuition for such things but pretty much every study of such things comes to the same conclusion: You can’t.
The reason why it doesn’t work is because the world is full of a diverse set of cultures, genetics, and subtle medical conditions. You may be able to attain something like 60% accuracy for certain personality traits from an interview if the person being interviewed was born and raised in the same type of environment/culture (and is the same sex) as you. Anything else is pretty much a guarantee that you’re going to get it wrong.
That’s why you should only ask interviewees empirical questions that can identify whether or not they have the requisite knowledge to do the job. For example, if you’re hiring an electrical engineer ask them how they would lay out a circuit board. Or if hiring a sales person ask them questions about how they would try to sell your specific product. Or if you’re hiring a union-busting expert person ask them how they sleep at night.
But all the other questions are to find out if they are a good fit for the office culture.
You know, if they are also white middle class dude bros.
