ai hiring tools trained on male - dominated resumes may favor male candidates.\n* 10 points\ntrue\nfalse\nwhi…

ai hiring tools trained on male - dominated resumes may favor male candidates.\n* 10 points\ntrue\nfalse\nwhich scenario demonstrates underfitting?\n* 10 points\n50% training accuracy and 55% test accuracy\n99% training accuracy and 60% test accuracy\n100% training accuracy and 100% test accuracy\n70% training accuracy and 72% test accuracy\nwhat is the primary risk of using ai for loan approvals without auditing training data?\n* 10 points\nfaster processing times\nperpetuating biases against marginalized groups\nreducing paperwork for applicants\nincreasing bank profits\nin the compas algorithm, why was zip code data problematic?\n* 10 points\nit was outdated\nit reflected historical over - policing of black/latino neighborhoods\nit lacked enough data points\nit was too expensive to process
Answer
Answer:
- A. True
- A. 50% training accuracy and 55% test accuracy
- B. Perpetuating biases against marginalized groups
- B. It reflected historical over - policing of Black/Latino neighborhoods
Brief Explanations:
- If AI hiring tools are trained on male - dominated resumes, they may learn and reproduce male - favorable patterns.
- Underfitting occurs when a model performs poorly on both training and test data, and the first option shows relatively low and similar accuracies.
- Without auditing training data for AI in loan approvals, biases against marginalized groups can be perpetuated.
- In the COMPAS algorithm, zip code data was problematic as it reflected historical over - policing of certain neighborhoods.