AI & future of workforce: Andrew Yang on how the technology will impact jobs

Andrew Yang, Forward Party co-chair and former Democratic presidential candidate, joins 'Squawk Box' to discuss the impact of AI on jobs, regulation around the technology, and more.

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Learn with AIFact CheckingText to SpeechAI Summary

Related Articles

Forbes

24 minutes ago

• Forbes

What The Workday Lawsuit Reveals About AI Bias—And How To Prevent It

Workday, Inc is facing a collective-action lawsuit based on claims that the artificial intelligence ... More used by the company to screen job applicants discriminated against candidates. HR finance company Workday, Inc is facing a collective-action lawsuit based on claims that the artificial intelligence used by the company to screen job applicants discriminated against candidates 40 years old and over. In 2024, Derek Mobley filed an employment discrimination lawsuit against Workday, alleging that their algorithm-based job applicant screening system discriminated against him and other applicants based on race, age and disability. Four additional plaintiffs have now accused the company of age discrimination. A Workday spokesperson refuted the claims to HR Drive stating 'This is a preliminary ruling at an early stage of this case, and before the facts have been established. We're confident that once those facts are presented to the court, the plaintiff's claims will be dismissed.' Data compiled by DemandSage estimates that in 2025, 87% of companies use AI for recruitment. Applicant tracking systems like Workable, Bamboo HR, Pinpoint ATS, and Rippling, which are used by employers to help manage the recruitment and hiring process, rely on AI to help streamline and automate the recruitment process. Companies are leaning heavily on AI to make crucial recruitment and hiring decisions, but these tools used so frequently during the employment process are laden with bias. One example was an AI recruiting tool used by Inc's machine-learning specialists, which was found to discriminate against women—the company scrapped the tool in 2018. AI bias is pervasive in recruitment and hiring tools. AI bias is pervasive in recruitment and hiring tools. A 2024 study from the University of Washington revealed racial and gender bias in AI tools used to screen resumes. There can be data bias, which is when AI systems are trained on biased data that can contain an overrepresentation of some groups (white people for example) and an underrepresented of other groups (non-white people for example). This can manifest into an AI tool that ends up rejecting qualified job candidates because it was trained on biased data. There is also algorithmic bias, which can include developer coding mistakes, where a developer's biases become embedded into an algorithm. An example of this is an AI system designed to flag job applicants whose resume's include certain terms meant to signal leadership skills like 'debate team,' 'captain' or 'president.' These key terms could end up filtering out job candidates from less affluent backgrounds or underrepresented racial groups, whose leadership potential might show up in non-traditional ways. Two other types of bias, proxy data bias and evaluation bias, can show up in recruitment and hiring tools. Proxy data bias can be described as the bias that shows up when proxies, or substitutes, are used for attributes like race and gender. An example of this is an algorithm that prioritizes job candidates who attended Ivy League or elite institutions, which may filter out candidates who went to historically Black colleges and universities (HBCUs), community colleges or state schools. Evaluation bias is the bias that results when evaluating the data. An example of this is if an organization is assessing a candidate for culture fit (which is notoriously biased), and trains an AI tool to prioritize job candidates who have particular hobbies listed on their resumes or who communicate in particular ways, which can bias candidates from cultures outside of the dominant norm. An algorithm that prioritizes job candidates who attended Ivy League or elite institutions may ... More filter out candidates who went to historically Black colleges and universities (HBCUs). As more organizations use AI to help with employment decisions, there are several steps that should be taken to mitigate the bias often baked into these tools. First, workplaces that utilize AI tools for hiring, selection and recruitment decisions should demand transparency from vendors to gain a deeper understanding of how the data was trained and what is being done to ensure the data has been audited for bias related to factors like race, gender, age and disability. In addition, companies should request frequent audits from the vendors to assess AI tool for bias. It's important for organizations to partner with experts in ethical AI usage in the workplace to ensure that when AI is integrated into workplace systems, there are safeguards in place. For example, an expert may assess whether job candidates from HBCUs are being filtered out of the talent pool. When using AI in any capacity in the workplace, it's helpful to seek guidance from your legal counsel or legal team to ensure AI tools are compliant with local and state laws. Transparency also applies to workplaces—organizations should be candid about AI usage during the employment process and should always consider alternative evaluation methods. AI, in many ways, has made our lives easier, more convenient and more accessible but there are valid concerns when it comes to AI usage and fairness. If equity is the goal and your workplace uses AI for recruitment and hiring decisions, it's good to trust the AI (to a reasonable extent) but always verify. AI is a powerful way to complement the employment process but should never replace human oversight.

Boston Globe

24 minutes ago

• Boston Globe

GOP tax bill would ease regulations on gun silencers and some rifles and shotguns

Advertisement Republicans who have long supported the changes, along with the gun industry, say the tax infringes on Second Amendment rights. They say silencers are mostly used by hunters and target shooters for sport. Get Starting Point A guide through the most important stories of the morning, delivered Monday through Friday. Enter Email Sign Up 'Burdensome regulations and unconstitutional taxes shouldn't stand in the way of protecting American gun owners' hearing,' said Clyde, who owns two gun stores in Georgia and often wears a pin shaped like an assault rifle on his suit lapel. Democrats are fighting to stop the provision, which was unveiled days after two Minnesota state legislators were shot in their homes, as the bill speeds through the Senate. They argue that loosening regulations on silencers could make it easier for criminals and active shooters to conceal their weapons. Advertisement 'Parents don't want silencers on their streets, police don't want silencers on their streets,' said Senate Democratic leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y. The gun language has broad support among Republicans and has received little attention as House Speaker Mike Johnson, R-La., and Senate Majority Leader John Thune, R-S.D., work to settle differences within the party on cuts to Medicaid and energy tax credits, among other issues. But it is just one of hundreds of policy and spending items included to entice members to vote for the legislation that could have broad implications if the bill is enacted within weeks, as Trump wants. Inclusion of the provision is also a sharp turn from the climate in Washington just three years ago when Democrats, like Republicans now, controlled Congress and the White House and pushed through bipartisan gun legislation. The bill increased background checks for some buyers under the age of 21, made it easier to take firearms from potentially dangerous people and sent millions of dollars to mental health services in schools. Passed in the summer of 2022, just weeks after the shooting of 19 children and two adults at a school in Uvalde, Texas, it was the most significant legislative response to gun violence in decades. Three years later, as they try to take advantage of their consolidated power in Washington, Republicans are packing as many of their longtime priorities as possible, including the gun legislation, into the massive, wide-ranging bill that Trump has called 'beautiful.' 'I'm glad the Senate is joining the House to stand up for the Second Amendment and our Constitution, and I will continue to fight for these priorities as the Senate works to pass President Trump's One Big Beautiful Bill,' said Texas Sen. John Cornyn, who was one of the lead negotiators on the bipartisan gun bill in 2022 but is now facing a primary challenge from the right in his bid for reelection next year. Advertisement If the gun provisions remain in the larger legislation and it is passed, silencers and the short-barrel rifles and shotguns would lose an extra layer of regulation that they are subject to under the National Firearms Act, passed in the 1930s in response to concerns about mafia violence. They would still be subject to the same regulations that apply to most other guns — and that includes possible loopholes that allow some gun buyers to avoid background checks when guns are sold privately or online. Larry Keane of the National Shooting Sports Foundation, who supports the legislation, says changes are aimed at helping target shooters and hunters protect their hearing. He argues that the use of silencers in violent crimes is rare. 'All it's ever intended to do is to reduce the report of the firearm to hearing safe levels,' Keane says. Speaking on the floor before the bill passed the House, Rep. Clyde said the bill restores Second Amendment rights from 'over 90 years of draconian taxes.' Clyde said Johnson included his legislation in the larger bill 'with the purest of motive.' 'Who asked for it? I asked,' said Clyde, who ultimately voted for the bill after the gun silencer provision was added. Clyde was responding to Rep. Maxwell Frost, a 28-year-old Florida Democrat, who went to the floor and demanded to know who was responsible for the gun provision. Frost, who was a gun-control activist before being elected to Congress, called himself a member of the 'mass shooting generation' and said the bill would help 'gun manufacturers make more money off the death of children and our people.' Advertisement Among other concerns, control advocates say less regulation for silencers could make it harder for law enforcement to stop an active shooter. 'There's a reason silencers have been regulated for nearly a century: They make it much harder for law enforcement and bystanders to react quickly to gunshots,' said John Feinblatt, president of Everytown for Gun Safety. Schumer and other Democrats are trying to convince the Senate parliamentarian to drop the language as she reviews the bill for policy provisions that aren't budget-related. 'Senate Democrats will fight this provision at the parliamentary level and every other level with everything we've got,' Schumer said earlier this month.

34 minutes ago

New York City is using ranked choice voting in its Democratic mayoral primary

NEW YORK -- New York City is using ranked choice voting in its Democratic mayoral primary election Tuesday, a system that takes some explaining, even for New Yorkers who have used it before. Voters' understanding of how ranked choice works could play a role in which candidate comes out on top in a race that features former Gov. Andrew Cuomo, progressive upstart Zohran Mamdani and several other current and former public officials, including City Council Speaker Adrienne Adams and City Comptroller Brad Lander, who was arrested last week at an immigration court. The system is based on a simple premise: Democracy works better if people aren't forced to make an all-or-nothing choice with their vote. Rather than pick just one candidate, voters get to rank several in order of preference. Even if a voter's top choice doesn't have enough support to win, their rankings of other candidates still play a role in determining the victor. The system is more complex than a traditional election, making it tough to forecast a winner. It could also take longer to get results. In New York City's version, voters get to rank up to five candidates, from first to last, on the ballot. If one candidate is the first choice of a majority of voters — more than 50% — that person wins the race outright, just like in a traditional election. If nobody hits that threshold, ranked choice analysis kicks in. Vote tabulation is done by computer in rounds. After the first round, the candidate in last place — the candidate ranked No. 1 by the fewest amount of people — is eliminated. The computer then looks at the ballots cast by people who ranked that candidate first, to see who they ranked second. Those people's votes are then redistributed to their second choices. That process then repeats. As more candidates are eliminated, voters' third, fourth and even fifth choices could potentially come into play. Rounds continue until there are only two candidates left. The one with the most votes wins. Eleven candidates are on the ballot in the Democratic mayoral primary. Incumbent Mayor Eric Adams isn't one of them. He's a Democrat but is running as an independent. The Republican Party has already picked its nominee, Guardian Angels founder Curtis Sliwa. The computerized process of tabulating votes takes little time, but it doesn't start right away. Polls close at 9 p.m. Tuesday. Within a few hours, preliminary results should give a picture of how the candidates are doing based on voters' first choices. The ranked choice tabulations, however, won't start until July 1 because the city needs to wait for the arrival of mail-in ballots. The July 1 tabulation could potentially give a clear picture of who won, but the result won't be official. Further rounds of ranked choice analysis will be done as additional absentee ballots come in until the board certifies the election July 15. This will be the second time New York City has used ranked choice in a mayoral primary. The first time, in 2021, things went haywire when elections officials neglected to clear test data from the tabulation program. That led to an inaccurate vote tally being reported until officials realized the error. Officials are hoping things go smoother this time. One benefit is that nobody 'wastes' their vote by picking an unpopular candidate as their first choice. Voters can rank someone they like No. 1, even if they suspect the candidate doesn't stand a chance. If that person is eliminated, voters still get a say in who wins based on their other rankings. Another benefit is that it's tough for someone to get elected without broad support. In a traditional election, it's possible for someone with fringe political views to win in a crowded field of candidates, even if they are deeply disliked by a majority of voters. That's theoretically less likely in a ranked choice system. A candidate could get the largest share of first-choice votes but still lose to someone who is the second or third choice of a large number of people. The system is tough to grasp. It requires voters to do more research. It also makes races less predictable. Transparency and trust are also potential problems. Ordinarily, candidates, the public and news organizations can see votes coming in, precinct by precinct, and know exactly who is leading and where their support comes from. Under the ranked choice system, the process of redistributing votes is done by computer. Outside groups will have a harder time evaluating whether the software sorted the ranked votes accurately. That's a challenge for news organizations, like The Associated Press, that analyze vote tallies and attempt to report a winner before the count is complete. There may be instances when candidates who seem to have a comfortable lead in first-place votes on election night lose because relatively few voters rank them as their second or third choice. That could lead to people questioning the results.