2025-11-10 ワシントン大学（UW）
＜関連情報＞
- https://www.washington.edu/news/2025/11/10/people-mirror-ai-systems-hiring-biases-study-finds/
- https://ojs.aaai.org/index.php/AIES/article/view/36749
思考なし、AIのみ：偏ったLLM採用推奨は人間の意思決定を変え、人間の自律性を制限する No Thoughts Just AI: Biased LLM Hiring Recommendations Alter Human Decision Making and Limit Human Autonomy
Kyra Wilson,Mattea Sim,Anna-Maria Gueorguieva,Aylin Caliskan
Proceedings of the Eighth AAAI/ACM Conference on AI, Ethics, and Society (AIES-25)
DOI:https://doi.org/10.1609/aies.v8i3.36749
Abstract
Despite bias in artificial intelligence (AI) being a risk of their use in hiring systems, there is no large-scale empirical investigation of the impacts of these biases on hiring decisions made collaboratively between people and AI systems. It is also unknown whether AI literacy, people’s own biases, and behavioral interventions intended to reduce discrimination affect these human-in-the-loop AI teaming (AI-HITL) outcomes. In this study, we conduct a resume-screening experiment (N=528) where people collaborate with simulated AI models exhibiting race-based preferences (bias) to evaluate candidates for 16 high and low status occupations. Simulated AI bias approximates factual and counterfactual estimates of racial bias in real-world AI systems. We investigate people’s preferences for White, Black, Hispanic, and Asian candidates (represented through names and affinity groups on quality-controlled resumes) across 1,526 scenarios and measure their unconscious associations between race and status using implicit association tests (IATs), which predict discriminatory hiring decisions but have not been investigated in human-AI collaboration. This evaluation framework can generalize to other groups, models, and domains. When making decisions without AI or with AI that exhibits no race-based preferences, people select all candidates at equal rates. However, when interacting with AI favoring a particular group, people also favor those candidates up to 90\% of the time, indicating a significant behavioral shift. The likelihood of selecting candidates whose identities do not align with common race-status stereotypes can increase by 13\% if people complete an IAT before conducting resume screening. Finally, even if people think AI recommendations are low quality or not important, their decisions are still vulnerable to AI bias under certain circumstances. This work has implications for people’s autonomy in AI-HITL scenarios, AI and work, design and evaluation of AI hiring systems, and strategies for mitigating bias in collaborative decision-making tasks. In particular, organizational and regulatory policy should acknowledge the complex nature of AI-HITL decision making when implementing these systems, educating people who use them, and determining which are subject to oversight.
