Slashdot Mirror
Emotion Recognition Systems Could Be Used In Job Interviews (techtarget.com)
dcblogs writes:
Emotion recognition software identifies micro-expressions through video analysis. These are expressions that may be as fast as 1/25 of a second and invisible to the human eye, but a close analysis of video can detect them. These systems are being used in marketing research, but some employers may be interested in using them to assess job candidates.
Vendors claim these systems can be used to develop a personality profile and discover a good cultural fit. The technology raises concerns, illustrated earlier this year who showed that face-reading technology could use photographs to determine sexual orientation with a high degree of accuracy.
One company has already added face recognition into their iPad-based time clock, which the company's CEO thinks could be adapted to also detect an employee's mood when they're clocking out. Yet even he has his reservations. While he thinks it could provide more accurate feedback from employees, he also admits that "There's something very Big Brother about it."
Vendors claim these systems can be used to develop a personality profile and discover a good cultural fit. The technology raises concerns, illustrated earlier this year who showed that face-reading technology could use photographs to determine sexual orientation with a high degree of accuracy.
One company has already added face recognition into their iPad-based time clock, which the company's CEO thinks could be adapted to also detect an employee's mood when they're clocking out. Yet even he has his reservations. While he thinks it could provide more accurate feedback from employees, he also admits that "There's something very Big Brother about it."
A real use for those Botox injections.
Fake it til you make it! Classic advice from a time before "expert" computerized lie detectors in the form of emotion recognition. Now its fake it until Big Brother is sufficiently advanced enough, and commodotized enough to see through you.
One thing psychopaths are great at, is simulating emotions. The rest of us get nervous and stumble under certain pressures. Not psychopaths. They will have an even greater advantage if such software is utilized for recruiting.
"The agriculture ministry is not in charge of Gundam" - Japanese ministry official.
If you tell me I am tormenting a turtle, I am likely to punch you in the face.
A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
Interviewer: You are in a desert. You: Ok. Interviewer: Bill Gates is also there. He's torturing a little turtle. You: Ok. Interviewer: What do you do? You: I help Bill Gates torture the turtle. Interviewer: Welcome to Microsoft!
Why did the chicken cross the road? Because Elon Musk put an AI chip in its head.
The thing it will detect 99% of the time is people being nervous.
"One company has already added face recognition into their iPad-based time clock, which the company's CEO thinks could be adapted to also detect an employee's mood when they're clocking out"
Shouldn't they be a bit more concerned about their mood while clocking in?
Oh, so close! The correct answer was "roll onto your back and let Bill torture you when he's ready"
"There's something very Big Brother about it"...
Yeah, no shit. Seriously, people?
A better application: use this in MMOs to shape the current expression of your avatar. Another idea: use to auto-select emoji in messaging apps on request. Yet another application might be when doing in-house beta software testing. Testers are often recorded in an attempt to gauge reaction to the software they're using. Detecting emotion might be very helpful here, and in fact, less intrusive than the typical "keep talking about your thought process" approach. There's typically no expectation of privacy in these situations - gauging reactions is the entire point.
It's fine if people deliberately opt-in to this in a transparent manner. It's creepy as hell if you're doing it without their knowledge or consent. If a company was actually using this on me during a job interview, they'd immediately be placed on the "only if I'm in danger of starving to death" list.
Irony: Agile development has too much intertia to be abandoned now.
Is this testing whether I'm a replicant or a lesbian, Mr. Deckard?
"You're in a desert, walking along in the sand when all of a sudden you look down and see a tortoise. It's crawling toward you..."
Basically a way to gauge applicants without the biases of the interviewer and give everyone a fair chance regardless of anything. However I then remember how often I've seen them screw up something simple and straightforward like variations of the fizz-buzz test that I figure it's not damn likely they'll use this remotely correctly. (But hey, I'm cynical)
Did you know 80 to 90% of the moderators on slashdot wouldn't recognize a troll even if one dragged them under a bridge.
Hire-Vue's schtick seems to be that their mysterious proprietary algorithm does magical "machine learning" analysis of your face and voice in the video answers it took, then it generates a magical "insight score" to tell the HR people whether or not you suck, along with how "confident" and "enthusiastic" and who knows how many other attributes Hire-Vue thinks it can detect (seems to also be special proprietary information, so I don't even really know what it was looking for.) I expect most people get marked down for not making "eye contact" with the webcam (rather than looking at the "person" - i.e. your own live video - on the screen like a normal human being.)
I will say that the process was more fun than I expected, but I'm not at all confident that Hire-Vue's robot won't sabotage my attempt to find gainful employment.
Also note that this format just coincidentally makes it easy to conveniently get an idea of whether you're "old", what your racial background and gender may be, etc., so if they are so inclined, HR can conveniently throw out your application if there's something there that they don't feel like talking to.
It's only been a week, so no idea yet how it went. Job-hunting these days is itself one of the worst jobs right now.
Hacker Public Radio is our Friend
Can they also recognize the middle finger?
"Capillary dilation of the so-called blush response? Fluctuation of the pupil? Involuntary dilation of the iris?" - Dr. Eldon Tyrell, Blade Runner
Debate is a form of harassment. Do not question my truth.
If they can build something as complicated as an emotion detector. It would be easy street to get rid of the brainless big boys.. Interviewers and accessors.. why not managers - maybe more :) Heck, why am I sad about this?? I want to see the TOP tier lose their jobs in a corporation! BYE BYE CEO's!! Here's your negative automation!! Your golden parachute turned to lead.. Happy landings!!
How come AI hasn't replaced politicians. Most of them don't even have one good thought in their head or think at all.. We could save billions!!
doesnt mean much, some of the people that grate my cheese are some of the best people in their jobs, most of the people that fit in well with everyone else are functionally useless
I mean its cool I can talk star trek over lunch, but I needed that dwg like 2 weeks ago and I just sent it to your dumb ass for the 3rd time cause its garbage
I may only be 50 (or will be the 20th of next month), but even I can remember when the biggest qualifications for getting hired were a desire to work and either an aptitude for the job or willingness to be quickly trained and brought up to speed for the tasks.
This space unintentionally left blank.
Candidate 1: Nervous
Candidate 2: Nervous
Candidate 3: Nervous
Candidate 4: Calm, but high
Table-ized A.I.
interviewer: I thought we established there would be no smoking during the interview. me: I'm not smoking, it's your stupid little emotion detection machine over there.
Seriously, make it easier to get people hired not harder.
What will happen to me if they discover I'm really a malfunctioning smart blender?! ;)
Anons need not reply. Questions end with a question mark.
I think this shit is hilarious. It's almost like a contest how much humiliating bullshit will people go through to work at these so-called "prestigious" companies.
Personally I would not want to be surrounded by people who eagerly pass these "tests", and I'm okay with the fact that these jobs are not for me.
If by "I can't write an answer" you mean one that has no syntax errors at all, with absolutely no bugs of any kind, that is the specific answer the interviewer was looking for, and in some arbitrary time frame which he or she has made up then guilty as charged. What you're supposed to do is give the test to a couple of co-workers that you know can code to see their results as a baseline. You know so you can see how often they make syntax errors and logic bugs and also how long it really takes someone to solve your particular issue. They have a word for this in science, it's called a control and you could compare an interviewee with a control sample. Of course if you actually use fizzbuzz correctly to just check to see if the person can code at all, IE can work toward an answer, understands what a function is, conditionals, for loops, etc then I'd pass that test.
Did you know 80 to 90% of the moderators on slashdot wouldn't recognize a troll even if one dragged them under a bridge.
The point of a computerized system is scale. I.e., the bot would be monitoring your displayed emotion every second of the day.
Crazy? When you're distinguishing your commodity through affective labor (a Pret a Manger), it almost seems inevitable.
Why worry about Big Brother systems? Everyone we've talked to who has one says the system is great! Surely that many people can't all be wrong... or coerced...
One more way for me to filter out bad potential employers.
Different people express emotions differently. That's why it's so hard to guess what someone is feeling.
For example, for some people, pausing before responding to a question means they don't know the answer, for others, it means that the person is carefully considering the nuances of a response.
In order to properly understand expressions, context is key. This is true of understanding spoken language as well. Computers are getting pretty good at understanding spoken language, but certainly not better than humans themselves. My guess is that this will be true of understanding emotions for some time.
All this leads me to believe that this is, at least in part, marketing hype.
The know-nothing power-mad culture of American HR departments is one of the many reasons China is beating us at absolutely everything.
They won't hire you to cut grass.
The jobs done by the illegal immigrant servant class are not open to citizens, even citizens willing to work for a pittance. That's how the California Apartheid system works.
The purpose is discrimination. Duh.
Who are "they"?
I remember taking a test for an electrician apprenticeship. They didn't test anything on knowledge of electrical code or Ohm's law. I remember reading an interesting story on the history of road building and having to answer questions about it. I think there was a pattern match portion and a mathematics portion but I don't remember them as well. It was an intelligence test, no doubt.
I took an intelligence test for the US Army, called the ASVAB or AFQT, scored in the 99th percentile too. Every branch of the US military has been doing this for 100 years or so.
I had a job interview for working at a call center to support sales people at a large advertising company. The intelligence test was a bit more oriented specifically for the job at hand but still an intelligence test. I had to listen to some prerecorded verbal instruction, and answer questions on how to respond. I didn't do as well as I wished and felt some of the questions were a matter of opinion or company policy than a purely logical action. There was a typing test, not precisely a test of intelligence again but it was certainly geared to separating those with an attention to detail and speed from those that did not. I thought I failed since I had not met the minimum score given at the beginning but I guess a lot of people must have failed too, with even lower scores.
I took a test called something like "National Career Readiness Assessment" that was paid for by the state employment service. If you registered in their database for a job they wanted you to take this test. I scored in the 90th percentile only because they take the lowest score of the three tests to give your rating, my average would have put me in the 95 or higher percentile.
In other interviews I was asked questions on logic, nothing formal really, but they wanted to see how the applicants would act when presented with a problem. I've interviewed with companies famous for their logic puzzle interviews, which left me with the thought of this being a very poor method of assessing an applicant. My suspicions were verified not because I wasn't called back for and interview but how an article was written on how such an interview process can be a turn off for intelligent people. So maybe I was too smart, maybe I was too dim, either way I was not terribly upset for not being called back.
The IQ test has long been replaced with high school diplomas and college degrees. These are very flawed intelligence tests unless some care is made to compare where the diplomas and degrees came from, topics studied, and to some extent the scores achieved. I suspect employers have seen the flaws in using formal schooling and grades to filter out applicants, which is why so many have returned to "employment assessments" instead. Colleges have been caught inflating grades and high schools have been known to graduate people for merely showing up for the entire four years.
You see they can ban an IQ test but they can't (yet) ban "employment assessments".
I am armed because I am free. I am free because I am armed.
I'm pretty sure China is beating us where they are beating us (which I believe is not everything) is because they have a nation with a national IQ of about 105 and staying there as immigrants must be returning Chinese nationals or people with enough intelligence and money that they will not be a burden on the state. In the USA we've got a national IQ of about 98 and we'll let any fucker stay in that can jump the border and have a kid before getting caught.
I don't care what anyone says, these people are not coming here for the jobs, schools, and health care. They are coming for the welfare, publicly funded schools, and government subsidized medicine. And I'm not so sure about the schools.
Even borderline third world nations like Mexico will jail people for jumping the border. They don't care if you've had a kid born there. If you don't have enough money to bribe the police then you will be imprisoned. If you do bribe the police then they might let you stay but that might just be enough to buy you a ride to the closest border rather than a prison sentence.
If we're going to blame anything on American HR departments then it's following "sanctuary city" policies of not checking employment documents. They might also look for "diversity" rather than actual work ethic, skill, intelligence, and education. China doesn't have an immigration problem, maybe a few hundred thousand out of over a billion. They also don't have a "diversity" problem, everyone working (officially at least, there's off the books people that work on "visitor" visas) is an ethnic Chinese.
If we want to stop getting beaten by China then we need to kick out the border jumpers. If they want in then they need to show that they have something to offer. Having a kid in the USA should not automatically mean the parent can stay. They child is free to stay, as well as free to go with the parent. The parent will have to go and if anyone complains about "breaking up families" then that's the fault of the parent. This is no different than "breaking up families" for parents sent to prison. It's sad and damaging to the family but if we do not punish anti-social behavior then we simply get more and more of it. This breeding of criminal behavior is bad on families too. Especially when we have illegal aliens driving drunk and/or without a license and killing people.
I hear these cries of "but they didn't break the law!" They broke the law when they jumped the border. They broke the law when they took a job. They broke the law when they sent their kids to school. They broke the law by driving without a license. Best chance we got to keep them from killing someone is to catch them for a petty crime and have them deported before some SJW police chief lets them go based on their "sanctuary city" policy. They need to be charged as an accessory to a crime for doing that, and the cities need to lose federal police funds. They've been getting that money on the promise of cooperation on enforcing federal law. If they don't hand over illegal immigrants then they are not holding up their end of the deal.
We'll catch up to China and surpass them as soon as we close our borders to these leaches.
I am armed because I am free. I am free because I am armed.
You're in a desert walking along in the sand when all of the sudden you look down, and you see a user, it's crawling toward you. You reach down, you flip the user over on its back. The user lays on its back, its belly baking in the hot sun, beating its legs trying to turn itself over, but it can't, not without your help. But you're not helping. Why is that?
Describe in single words, only the good things that come into your mind about your mother.
with apologies to
http://www.allthetests.com/qui...
echo -e 'global _start\n _start:\n mov eax, 2\n int 80h\n jmp _start' > a.asm; nasm a.asm -f elf; ld a.o -o a;
Stefan Molyneaux (I think that's how it's spelled) had a series of videos on this a year or three ago. He's had a few more since. The best one in the last few months was with Dr. Jordan Peterson (also not sure on spelling).
I keep hearing about "Flynn Effect" when IQ comes up so I rewatched some interviews Stef did with Dr. James Flynn and some of his supporters and detractors. Even Dr. Flynn admits that there is a genetic limit to intelligence and that the testing we have is highly accurate across cultures. The debate is if the IQ of a person or population is 50/50 upbringing and genetics or more like 80% genetics and 20% upbringing.
Even if the Flynn Effect accounts for 50% intelligence there's still evidence that the best we can do is raise IQ scores by maybe 20 points. That might seem like a lot but there are entire nations with an average IQ below 70. Improved nutrition might add 10 points, improved childhood environment might add another 10 points, but you'll still have a national average IQ of maybe 85 or 90. The average IQ score of an American high school graduate is 105.
With an IQ of 75 we can expect a 50-50 chance of reaching the 9th grade. Those with graduate degrees, like MD, JD, DDS, MBA, or what not, have an average IQ of 120. What does that mean for a nation with an average IQ of 85? 75? Or even 65? There's near certainty that there are people able to achieve being dentists, pharmacists, surgeons, lawyers, engineers, and so forth. The problem is that such people will be such a small portion of the population that they cannot meet the needs of the nation. Each surgeon needs technicians and nurses. A judge needs prosecutors and bailiffs.
Assuming the IQ of these nations can be raised by education and medicine then we need the people intelligent enough to teach and provide health care to stay in those nations. Importing these intelligent people to the USA leaves them at a far greater loss than we in the USA could gain. If they are coming to the USA then we could at least test their IQ so that their coming here doesn't lower the IQ of both nations.
I am armed because I am free. I am free because I am armed.
A: Is this the test now?
Q: You look up and you see a programmable relative cursor on a Cartesian plane...
A: What's that?
Q: Know what a LOGO turtle is?
A: I've never seen a turtle -- But I understand what you mean.
Q: Same thing.
A: Do you make up these questions, Mr. Holden, or do they write them down for you?
Q: You're watching some source code scroll by. Suddenly you realize there's a bug...
A: I'd kill it.
Q: You're surfing a StackOverflow and you come across a flaming fullpage answer utilizing Common Lisp.
A: Is this testing whether I'm a replicant or a multi-paradigm programming language aficionado?
Q: Just answer the questions, please -- You show it to your manager. He likes it so much he hangs it on your cubicle wall.
A: I wouldn't let him.
Q: Why not?
A: Python should be enough for him.
Well, beats listening to racists like you dismissing racism.
I need to work!! In fact I just need the money.
I don't interview for enthusiasm to work for a living. I want to hire people though that want to work for a living with me, helping my company, rather than somewhere else (or anywhere).
I could earn a good living at most companies in the country. I don't want to work at most of them. I can articulate easily why I would prefer to work for any potential employer than their competition or other local companies. That's where the enthusiasm and interest comes in.
Working for a living isn't great, but given that's going to happen, working somewhere you can find the work engaging and interesting, achieve personal satisfaction through individual and shared outcomes, and retain your integrity by demonstrating the value you add are all important to me and easy to convey at interview.
This would almost certainly discriminate against protected groups - e.g. people with learning disabilities such as Aspergers.
Is this the one about tortoises?
Monty Python's Flying Circus: Silly Job Interview
'He who has to break a thing to find out what it is, has left the path of wisdom.' -- Gandalf to Saruman
Working for "move fast and break things" companies can work, provided your superiors are aware that you're going to break things and not blame you for them.
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes