If I am reading the article correctly, the point of the lawsuit is not that they used AI to make their staffing decisions. It's that the criteria they asked the AI to use to make those decisions directly disadvantaged people who were on approved leave for medical reasons, and whose jobs were supposed to be protected by law.

It's an important distinction. These decision makers delegated their staffing decisions to a bot. But bots are not people. If the instructions given to those bots resulted in actions that violated the law, the decision makers need to be held accountable, I the same manner they would if they made those decisions without AI assistance.

If they didn't use AI and instead actively choice to terminate workers with disabilities and medical problems unfairly, that seems almost worse. Like, they're just admitting to discrimination, aren't they?

It's like being accused of exercising poor gun safety leading to someone's death and saying, "I exercise perfect gun safety, I actively chose to shoot them!"

might as well roll dice. it boggles the mind how people keep taking jobs there and doing all this evil ass shit for them only to be rewarded with being laid off anyway, whether they did a good job or not. i get the ecomomic threat, but people still see these places as prestigious somehow.

"careless people" indeed.