Raw LLM Responses

@scottw9267 Thanks for the comment and I think I need to clarify my previous reply to you a bit. When we think about bias in things like hiring systems, the goal isn't just to get to 50/50 representation, but it's rather to consider the historical context of what we're dealing with. With jobs in CS, historically, women have been left out BECAUSE of intentional biases against them. As in, men ran the field (they still largely do) and intentionally chose to prefer hiring other men over women. So, that is bias that is driven the gatekeepers in the field. AI/ML hiring systems like the ones I discuss in this video continue that pattern...albeit without explic intent (the programs don't say "exclude women") but rather just by continuing the same behaviors that the humans before them engaged in. In cases like nursing, teaching, social work, there is NO evidence (that I know of) of intentional bias against men. The higher rates of women in those fields is entirely a function of preferences. As in, it's not that there is this glut of men who are dieing to become nurses and teachers but women are actively keeping them out. Rather, there just aren't as many men interested in those fields. So the outcome appears biased against men (there are fewer of them), but the process isn't biased. That said, if it were the case that men were unable to get nursing jobs because of their gender, I would 100% agree that this is a problem, just like it is a problem that women can't get CS jobs. On to over-representation. The comment I made was suggesting that to correct a historical problem, it's enough to just get to 50/50 hiring of men/women. If you do that, it'll take a very long time to reach something like 50/50 EMPLOYMENT of men/women because the starting point is already so skewed towards men. So, there is a case to over-hire women to help balance the gender representation rates in the field. This is entirely predicated on enough supply, and, I am arguing, there IS enough supply of qualified women. Just see how CMU computer science managed to get to 50/50 CS undergraduates by actively deciding to change the paradigm about what counts as "qualified." And note that they did this without sacrificing quality one bit (details here: https://cacm.acm.org/magazines/2019/2/234346-how-computer-science-at-cmu-is-attracting-and-retaining-women/fulltext