In the context of employment, the general concern is that some entities are using the recruitment process for data collection and intelligence gathering purposes in ways that appear to be highly unethical.
Flagged as "high risk," these activities include, but are not limited to, the following:
The data reveal that corporate misconduct in the context of employment is pervasive. Analysis also confirms that such conduct has caused severe mental anguish, as well as emotional, psychological, financial, and other traumas to countless workers. Research and analysis further establishes that these business models, and the systems that support them, were conceived, designed, and built using theories, ideas, and rules (collectively, "algorithms") that deliberately and intentionally favor and prosper certain groups of people at the expense of others.
Select each word to expand the text.
Several members have reported that they were required to participate in multiple rounds of interviews, during which they were asked detailed and specific questions about their prior professional experiences in ways that felt inappropriate, invasive, beyond scope.
There are also reports of candidates being required to complete time-consuming and complex tasks and assignments prior to being considered for certain roles, assignments, or positions.
Cases in which a candidate was not extended an offer following such a lengthy and involved interview process raises concerns that some entities are using the interview process to "extract" data, information and pre-existing IP from highly knowledgeable candidates, including industry insiders, subject matter experts, and information technology professionals. There are reports for example, that during these interviews, the corporate participants took copious notes and that some sessions were recorded without the candidate's knowledge and consent.
Known as the "carrot-and-the-stick" approach, some entities facilitate the selection of financially vulnerable candidates by using the lure of a "high-paying job," which ultimately proves to be temporary work at hourly rates that are far below market value.
In an effort to attract more seasoned and experienced candidates, some positions are advertised as being "highly visible" with "client facing opportunities" -- with an apparent goal of attracting individuals who may be inclined to view those interactions as career enhancement opportunities, and thus less likely to identify or report instances of non-compliance.
There are also cases of some entities using an attention-grabbing "exact match" job scenario to lure highly qualified candidates into employment discussion process -- again for the sole purpose of intelligence gathering and data collection.
Recent communications include reports that some entities engage candidates exclusively to fulfill certain "corporate policy requirements" (such as DEI) with no serious intention of offering employment to the candidate.
In other cases, the corporate entity may engage a candidate matching a certain DEI profile for a role or position clearly inconsistent with the candidate's background and expertise, with the goal of luring or forcing the candidate into accepting an objectively observable "inferior" role (a process known as "taming" and a game mode known as "Antebellum").
The prevailing view is that the chief purpose of the foregoing practices is to extract behavioral and psychological data from DEI candidates, in particular. For example, for AI research and training purposes, these entities may target DEI candidates for certain roles, and thereafter subject the candidate to pre-designed tests and prompts designed to extract behavioral and psychological data concerning the candidate's reactions and responses.
The data demonstrate that a DEI candidate is more likely to be targeted for "copying" and "data extraction" for AI training purposes because a DEI candidate is the most likely to be the "smartest" "most knowledgeable" "most skilled" person in the "lowest ranking" position.
The fact that a DEI candidate is more likely to possess the skills and aptitude to "multi-task" and to handle multiple jobs and roles simultaneously (cross-functional management), and to make fast and accurate decisions (efficiency) renders DEI "the most highly sought after" and "the most valuable" data for AI training purposes -- essentially allowing corporations to train AI using the data of one DEI candidate who possesses the knowledge, background, skills, and experience of multiple employees.
In brief, the data supports the conclusion that the "most gifted and talented" employees are the primary targets of AI "data extraction" and training, with some vendors declaring DEI data to be so valuable they label it Opus Dei (based on the original Latin meaning of the term). The view is that DEI data is such a "treasure" that finding it must be the "work of God."
The view is that the foregoing policies have resulted in an overwhelming number of DEI candidates being subjected to AI research without their knowledge and consent. Worse is the fact that these entities have essentially "trained" their AI to accept bias as a "logical" outcome, thereby allowing biased algorithms to generate biased outcomes throughout the entirety of these inherently biased "black box" algorithmic networks.
A developing story based on new data and insight. More information coming soon.
redline: a recommended safety limit: the fastest, farthest, or highest point or degree considered safe
COPYRIGHT ©️ 2024 CAROUSEL CONSULTING, LLC, a mixed reality practice.