this post was submitted on 23 Jun 2026
64 points (100.0% liked)
Work Reform
16656 readers
176 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:
- All workers must be paid a living wage for their labor.
- Income inequality is the main cause of lower living standards.
- Workers must join together and fight back for what is rightfully theirs.
- We must not be divided and conquered. Workers gain the most when they focus on unifying issues.
Our Goals
- Higher wages for underpaid workers.
- Better worker representation, including but not limited to unions.
- Better and fewer working hours.
- Stimulating a massive wave of worker organizing in the United States and beyond.
- Organizing and supporting political causes and campaigns that put workers first.
founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
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 I've sounds kind of bogus to me.
Can that many people really be this stupid?
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
Just imagine stupidity on a gauss curve. The average Joe is stupid as f. And then realize HALF of people are dumber than Joe.
Yeah but even if half of Nepo Babies are mentally impaired they were all forced to go to expensive business schools.
Many of them paid for those degrees, like Trump. He didn't earn a degree, he bought one.
If it's the cheapest modus operandi the bean counters can find to accomplish the task, you bet they can.
Theres nothing cheap about hundreds of discrimination lawsuits, lmao.
AI racial bias is not a new thing.
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.
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.
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.
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 metric assloads of these cases.
vs
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.
LLMs and even the other 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.
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.