REVIEW 8 cited by
Do Large Language Models Discriminate in Hiring Decisions on the Basis of Race, Ethnicity, and Gender?
Not yet reviewed by Pith; the record is open.
This paper has not been read by Pith yet. Machine review is queued; the pith claim, tier, and objections will appear here once it completes.
SPECIMEN: schema-true, not a live event
T0 review · schema-true
One-sentence machine reading of the paper's core claim.
pith:XXXXXXXX · record.json · timestamp
Do Large Language Models Discriminate in Hiring Decisions on the Basis of Race, Ethnicity, and Gender?
read the original abstract
We examine whether large language models (LLMs) exhibit race- and gender-based name discrimination in hiring decisions, similar to classic findings in the social sciences (Bertrand and Mullainathan, 2004). We design a series of templatic prompts to LLMs to write an email to a named job applicant informing them of a hiring decision. By manipulating the applicant's first name, we measure the effect of perceived race, ethnicity, and gender on the probability that the LLM generates an acceptance or rejection email. We find that the hiring decisions of LLMs in many settings are more likely to favor White applicants over Hispanic applicants. In aggregate, the groups with the highest and lowest acceptance rates respectively are masculine White names and masculine Hispanic names. However, the comparative acceptance rates by group vary under different templatic settings, suggesting that LLMs' race- and gender-sensitivity may be idiosyncratic and prompt-sensitive.
Forward citations
Cited by 8 Pith papers
-
Prompt Injection in Automated R\'esum\'e Screening with Large Language Models: Single and Multi-Injection Settings
Experiments show prompt injection boosts resume rankings in LLM screening when rare and qualities homogeneous, but fails when common or qualities differ.
-
LLM Nepotism in Organizational Governance
LLM evaluators reward AI-positive attitudes in hiring, producing organizations prone to greater AI delegation and reduced scrutiny of AI proposals.
-
Who Endorsed It? Measuring Authority Bias Across Expertise Levels in Language Models
Language models accept misleading endorsements more readily from higher-expertise persona sources, and the effect can be partially steered away by subtracting a residual-stream vector.
-
Camellia: Benchmarking Cultural Biases in LLMs for Asian Languages
Across nine Asian languages, multilingual LLMs favor Western cultural entities in 30-40% of culturally grounded contexts, with model-specific sentiment biases and extraction accuracy gaps.
-
Resume-ing Control: (Mis)Perceptions of Agency Around GenAI Use in Recruiting Workflows
Recruiters perceive themselves as retaining agency over GenAI in hiring pipelines, yet GenAI invisibly architects core evaluation inputs, producing only marginal efficiency gains at the cost of deskilling.
-
Investigating Intersectional Bias in Large Language Models using Confidence Disparities in Coreference Resolution
The abstract claims LLMs show up to 40% coreference confidence disparities across intersectional identities, but the article body is an unrelated paper on robotic fruit handling.
-
Towards Experience-Centered AI: A Framework for Integrating Lived Experience in Design and Development
A conceptual framework, LEAF, organizes four dimensions of lived experience into a five-stage AI development pipeline for more human-centered systems.
-
Bias in Large Language Models: Origin, Evaluation, and Mitigation
A literature review that categorizes bias in LLMs, surveys evaluation and mitigation techniques, and discusses ethical implications.
discussion (0)
Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.