It's been reported variously that AI is getting into the real-time compensation process. The upshot is that similar work does not engender similar pay, even on the same project.
We know all about you
It's been alleged that companies are amassing "deep data sets", individualized by name, for "gig workers" which provide all the information needed to fashion a customized compensation package to stimulate the behavior the project expects from that worker. Some details on the research into this practice are found here.
Discriminatory?
On the one hand, really productive people could expect compensation in accord with their value; others may feel its "wage discrimination" based on a myriad of factors known only to the vagaries of the AI engine.
Fair, unbiased?
Most of us know by now that these generative engines, loosely modeling neural networks, are largely "black boxes". Even the CEO of Google has said that. And, not only are the engine internals obscure, but their outcomes are not wholly predictable, nor are the outcomes and results entirely repeatable.
It's also been reported that many of the biases that lurk in the "deep data sets" find their way into outcomes.
Value demonstrated
Maybe we should continue with the mainstream comp system which relies on demonstrated value to the project. The project at large is judged that way; why not the people component as well?
Like this blog? You'll like my books also! Buy them at any online book retailer!
