 |
|
|
|||||
Like so many lines of business, HR departments are increasingly relying on generative artificial intelligence tools. According to Insight Globals 2025 AI in Hiring report, 92% of hiring managers say they are using AI for screening résumés or prescreening interviews and more than half (57%) are using them for skills assessments. However, even as more teams rely on AI, especially for screening early in the hiring process, the cost may be the very talent companies are seeking. A 2021 report by Harvard Business School and Accenture found that applicant tracking systems were screening out good candidates. According to the report, 88% of employers said that qualified, highly skilled candidates were vetted out of the process by their applicant tracking systems because they did not match the exact job description criteria. The percentage for middle-skills workers was even higher (94%). As candidates have a harder time finding jobs and companies still struggle to find great talent, thats a problem. I think that many companies have jumped the gun and have implemented some of these tools to help on the operations side, says Hope-Elizabeth Sonam, head of community at marketing firm We Are Rosie. But while recruiters and hiring managers have been looking for productivity improvements, they may not be taking enough time to make sure that the tools that they’re using are creating a fair, inclusive, whole, human approach to how talent is being scrutinized in the process, she says. While candidate screening tools do offer help to overwhelmed HR teams, they also need thoughtful implementationsand a few safeguardsto ensure that theyre serving up the most comprehensive list of talent available. Understand the vetting criteria Sonam says that teams must understand how their tools are vetting candidates. Many end users of these tools . . . don’t understand how the decisions are being made, she says. They don’t understand the logic that is behind this machine learning that is, let’s say, scoring their matches a 2 out of 10 fit. Ask questions about how the tools filter talent, evaluate skills, and perform other functions, she advises. Anoop Gupta, cofounder and CEO of talent sourcing platform SeekOut, advises opting for tools that use semantic match, which derives meaning from language context rather than simply searching for keywords. That way, he says, you’re not filtering out people and you’re not filtering in people who have just padded their résumé with a variety of keywords. When you understand such criteria, you can adapt your approach and data to help search for certain skills or experience. Review your training data Eric Sullano, cofounder of JumpSearch, an AI-powered recruitment platform, says that the data used to train the AI screening systems needs to be carefully reviewed and monitored. Some companies may be so focused on trying to track that magical mix of employees that have been successful at their companies, that they inadvertently train their screening systems to eliminate people who dont match those patterns, he adds. So, for example, if a company has hired a number of people from specific universities, the platform may begin to deprioritize candidates who do not match those schools. They need to be aware of the data that’s being reflected of their current organizations and their current bias, Sullano says. That way, they can be aware of areas where they may need to look more broadly at skills or unconventional candidates to find the skills they need. Audit and improve Fine-tuning screening tools to be accurate and inclusive takes time and human intervention, Sonam says. Periodic auditing of data and results is essential to ensure that the criteria and outcomes reflect the organizations best interest. It really becomes a data science and HR partnership, she says. How can [these tools] be optimized with the whole human in mind if you care about fair and inclusive hiring practices, she saysnot to mention abiding by legal and regulatory issues, as well. Sullano agrees. The best systems will provide some level of audit capabilities of what is going on with the AI, how it’s making its decisions, what context it has, he says. Humans need to review that information regularly to ensure that the right decisions are being made and, if not, that changes can be implemented to correct mistakes or eliminate overly rigorous screening that may be costing the organization good candidates. [If theres] a gray area, the hiring managers need to be able to have insight into, and a human in the loop. Feedback is going to be very important, he says. And thats an area where humans will always need to be involved, Sonam adds.
Category:
E-Commerce
President Donald Trumps idea of a Golden Dome missile defense system carries a range of potential strategic dangers for the United States. Golden Dome is meant to protect the U.S. from ballistic, cruise and hypersonic missiles, and missiles launched from space. Trump has called for the missile defense to be fully operational before the end of his term in three years. Trumps goals for Golden Dome are likely beyond reach. A wide range of studies makes clear that even defenses far more limited than what Trump envisions would be far more expensive and less effective than Trump expects, especially against enemy missiles equipped with modern countermeasures. Countermeasures include multiple warheads per missile, decoy warheads, and warheads that can maneuver or are difficult to track, among others. Regardless of Golden Domes feasibility, there is a long history of scholarship about strategic missile defenses, and the weight of evidence points to the defenses making their host country less safe from nuclear attack. Im a national security and foreign policy professor at Harvard University, where I lead Managing the Atom, the universitys main research group on nuclear weapons and nuclear energy policies. For decades, Ive been participating in dialogues with Russian and Chinese nuclear expertsand their fears about U.S. missile defenses have been a consistent theme throughout. Russian President Vladmir Putin and Chinese leader Xi Jinping have already warned that Golden Dome is destabilizing. Along with U.S. offensive capabilities, Golden Dome poses a threat of directly undermining global strategic stability, spurring an arms race, and increasing conflict potential both among nuclear-weapon states and in the international arena as a whole, a joint statement from China and Russia said. While that is a propaganda statement, it reflects real concerns broadly held in both countries. History lessons Experience going back half a century makes clear that if the administration pursues Golden Dome, it is likely to provoke even larger arms buildups, derail already-dim prospects for any negotiated nuclear arms restraint, and perhaps even increase the chances of nuclear war. My first book, 35 years ago, made the case that it would be in the U.S. national security interest to remain within the 1972 Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty, which strictly limited U.S. and Sovietand later Russianmissile defenses. The U.S. and the Soviet Union negotiated the ABM Treaty as part of SALT I, the first agreements limiting the nuclear arms race. It was approved in the Senate 98-2. The ABM Treaty experience is instructive for the implications of Golden Dome today. Why did the two countries agree to limit defenses? First and foremost, because they understood that unless each sides defenses were limited, they would not be able to stop an offensive nuclear arms race. If each side wants to maintain the ability to retaliate if the other attacks (Dont nuke me, or Ill nuke you), then an obvious answer to one side building up more defenses is for the other to build up more nuclear warheads. For example, in the 1960s and 1970s, the Soviets installed 100 interceptors to defend Moscow, so the U.S. targeted still more warheads on Moscow to overwhelm the defense. Had it ever come to a nuclear war, Moscow would have been even more thoroughly obliterated than if there had been no defense at all. Both sides came to realize that unlimited missile defenses would just mean more offense on both sides, leaving both less secure than before. In addition, nations viewed an adversarys shield as going hand in hand with a nuclear sword. A nuclear first strike might destroy a major part of a countrys nuclear forces. Missile defenses would inevitably be more effective against the reduced, disorganized retaliation that they knew would be coming than they would be against a massive, well-planned surprise attack. That potential advantage to whoever struck first could make nuclear crises even more dangerous. Post-ABM Treaty world Unfortunately, President George W. Bush pulled the United States out of the ABM Treaty in 2002, seeking to free U.S. development of defenses against potential missile attacks from small states such as North Korea. But even now, decades later, the U.S. has fewer missile interceptors deployed (44) than the treaty permitted (100). The U.S. pullout did not lead to an immediate arms buildup or the end of nuclear arms control. But Putin has complained bitterly about U.S. missile defenses and the U.S. refusal to accept any limitation at all on them. He views the U.S. stance as an effort to achieve military superiority by negating Russias nuclear deterrent. Russia is investing heavily in new types of strategic nuclear weapons intended to avoid U.S. missile defenses, from an intercontinental nuclear torpedo to a missile that can go around the world and attack from the south, while U.S. defenses are mainly pointed north toward Russia. Similarly, much of Chinas nuclear buildup appears to be driven by wanting a reliable nuclear deterrent in the face of the U.S.s capability to strike its nuclear forces and use missile defenses to mop up the remainder. Indeed, the Chinese were so angered by South Koreas deployment of U.S.-provided regional defenseswhich they saw as aiding the U.S. ability to intercept Chinese missilesthat they imposed stiff sanctions on South Korea. Fuel to the fire Now Trump wants to go much further, with a defense forever ending the missile threat to the American homeland, with a success rate very close to 100%. I believe that this effort is highly likely to lead to still larger nuclear buildups in Rusia and China. The Putin-Xi joint statement pledges to counter defenses aimed at achieving military superiority. Given the ease of developing countermeasures that are extraordinarily difficult for defenses to overcome, odds are the resulting offense-defense competition will leave the U.S. worse off than before, and a good bit poorer. Putin and Xi made clear that they are particularly concerned about the thousands of space-based interceptors Trump envisions. These interceptors are designed to hit missiles while their rockets are still burning during launch. Most countries are likely to oppose the idea of deploying huge numbers of weapons in space, and these interceptors would be both expensive and vulnerable. China and Russia could focus on further developing anti-satellite weapons to blow a hole in the defense, increasing the risk of space war. Already, there is a real danger that the whole effort of negotiated limits to temper nuclear arms racing may be coming to an end. The last remaining treaty limiting U.S. and Russian nuclear forces, the New START Treaty, expires in February 2026. Chinas rapid nuclear buildup is making many defense officials and experts in Washington, D.C., call for a U.S. buildup in response. Intense hostility all around means that for now, neither Russia nor China is even willing to sit down to discuss nuclear restraints, in treaty form or otherwise. A way forward In my view, adding Golden Dome to this combustible mix would likely end any prospect of avoiding a future of unrestrained and unpredictable nuclear arms competition. But paths away from these dangers are available. It would be quite plausible to design defenses that would provide some protection against attacks from a handful of missiles from North Korea or others that would not seriously threaten Russian or Chinese deterrent forcesand design restraints that would allow all parties to plan their offensive forces knowing what missile defenses they would be facing in the years to come. I believe that Trump should temper his Golden Dome ambitions to achieve his other dream of negotiating a deal to reduce nuclear dangers. Matthew Bunn is a professor of the practice of energy, national security, and foreign policy at Harvard Kennedy School. This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.
Category:
E-Commerce
How did Crunchyroll become the powerhouse of the anime world? In this episode of FC Explains, we dive deep into how Crunchyroll transformed from a small streaming service to the global leader in anime distribution. Discover how it helped push anime into mainstream pop culture, influenced the global perception of Japanese media, and changed the entertainment landscape forever.
Category:
E-Commerce
All news |
||||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||