Blackballed by machine learning: how algorithms can destroy your chances of getting a job

Yep. Age discrimination goes both ways. I get it and sympathize with the olds and how they’re discriminated against. Having a difficult time trying to keep their careers going and having a difficult time supporting their families. But there’s a point to be made that the kids have it just as bad in that nearly nobody’s willing to give them a shot at even starting their careers.

And internships, I feel, are fucking predatory. Companies taking advantage of kids who just want to do what they went into insane and unreasonable debt to get an education in. Working for free, and being paid in “experience” is just dumb and unethical when you absolutely know these kids may never be free of their debt. It’s not right.

It’s hard to start a family, and buy a house and afford a car and be an actual adult when everyone hiring says that 22 years old isn’t adult enough to be considered hireable for a job they went to college and got a degree for.

Makes me feel like a fool for getting an education. I’m not convinced it even made a difference. Probably was a waste of time and money, and I could have spent it better just going out into the real world making friends and picking fights.


So, basically: No one is doing cross validation. Or, at least, cross validation is only being done on the limited set of people that you had hired.[/quote]

This is a common problem with every article that I have seen based on hyping this book. The issues with validation of machine learning’s results, the need to be able to explain your results, the need to avoid over fitting to your training data, and everything that is brought up here are all known problems with decades of research behind them, but every article treats this as a new discovery and blames the technology itself, rather than the less hyperbolic but more useful approach of explaining how these systems can be improved. If this is what journalists and bloggers are getting from the book, it doesn’t say much for the writing.


In some ways I’m glad it was clear enough for me. I took a teaching job in China within about two weeks of graduating - not because that’s what I really wanted to do, but because nobody was answering my applications at all (and I’d been to all the career fairs, had my CV checked by professionals, volunteered, highlighted all of my strengths and experience, written an individual CV for each company where I researched what they did etc.). I got one non-committal reply about a year after I moved, which was probably eight months after I applied.


amstrad, lycos, atari, sega, ask jeeves

1 Like

Yeah, no. If that were true, Jim Crow would have sorted itself out without the needed for massive protests, lawsuits and eventual federal intervention. The market is a means to an end. People tend to think that the end is money, but it’s not. The end is power. And ‘power’ is another way of saying ‘inequality’.

It’s well known that tech companie’s mass-market product design is hurt by having a monocultural workforce and yet barely any of them are fixing it. Because the white men in charge happily forgo some money for more power.


This topic was automatically closed after 5 days. New replies are no longer allowed.