社团指南
NYC Local Law 144 and AI Hiring Bias Audits
NYC Local Law 144 requires employers and employment agencies that use automated employment decision tools (AEDTs) for hiring or promotion in New York City to get an independent bias audit each year, publish a summary of the results, and notify candidates before the tool is used.
在本页4 分钟阅读
概述
It was one of the first laws anywhere to require bias audits of hiring algorithms, and its early record shows both what such audits can reveal and how hard they are to enforce.
深入探讨
The New York City Council passed Local Law 144 in 2021. It took effect on January 1, 2023, and the Department of Consumer and Worker Protection (DCWP) began enforcing it on July 5, 2023. An AEDT is a computational process derived from machine learning, statistical modeling, data analytics or AI that issues a simplified output, such as a score, classification or recommendation, used to substantially assist or replace discretionary decision-making for employment decisions. The final rules read substantially assist narrowly: for example, relying solely on the output, weighting it more than other criteria, or using it to overrule human judgment. Critics argue this lets many employers decide their tools are out of scope. Before using an AEDT, an employer must have a bias audit conducted by an independent auditor within the past year and post a summary online, including the date of the audit, the distribution date of the tool, and selection or scoring rates and impact ratios by sex, race/ethnicity and intersectional categories. Candidates and employees who are NYC residents must receive notice at least 10 business days before use, including the job qualifications and characteristics the tool assesses, and instructions for requesting an alternative process or accommodation. The law does not require the employer to provide that alternative, and it does not set a passing score: an audit showing disparities does not by itself make use unlawful, though federal and state anti-discrimination laws still apply. Penalties are $500 for a first violation and up to $1,500 for subsequent ones. Enforcement has looked weak so far. A 2024 academic study found that only a small fraction of hundreds of employers checked had posted audits, and a New York State Comptroller audit released in late 2025 criticized DCWP's complaint-driven enforcement. A common misconception is that the law bans biased tools; it mainly mandates transparency.
战略影响
风险与安全
灾难性和日常的人工智能危害都取决于谁了解风险以及谁能够采取行动。
更清晰的判决
公众和专业素养决定强有力的安全政策在政治上是否可行。
打破炒作
清晰的解释可以减少炒作、实验室公关和模糊道德剧场的影响。
The Future of NYC Local Law 144 and AI Hiring Bias Audits
Local Law 144 has become a reference point for other proposals, including state bills and the Colorado AI Act, which place hiring among high-risk uses. Its early record has pushed policymakers to consider broader definitions of covered tools, clearer enforcement, and duties that go beyond disclosure. City officials and council members have discussed amendments in response to criticism, though the outcome is uncertain. For employers, the lasting lesson is that impact ratio testing, independent audits and candidate notice are becoming standard practice for AI in hiring regardless of where rules finally settle.
现实世界的实施
A retailer hiring in Manhattan uses software that ranks applicants by resume match, so it hires an independent auditor, calculates impact ratios by sex and race/ethnicity, and posts the summary on its careers page.
A staffing agency using an AI video-interview scoring tool for NYC roles sends candidates notice at least 10 business days in advance, explaining the tool will be used and how to request an alternative process or accommodation.
A company uses a tool only to schedule interviews and does not use it to score or rank candidates, so it concludes the tool likely does not substantially assist a hiring decision under the rules.
An auditor finds that fewer than 2 percent of the audit data comes from one race category, and the published summary notes that category was excluded from the impact ratio calculation as the rules allow.
风险与防护栏
将存在风险视为科幻小说，同时能力复合。
混淆了表面产品安全与高度自治下的对准。
只给非英语和非专业观众留下低质量的资源。
实施路线图
单独的产品危害、误用和失控/失调风险。
询问哪些证据会改变您对时间表和严重性的看法。
比起营销主张，更喜欢主要来源和具体评估。
确定一条行动路径：职业、政策、资金或技能——而不仅仅是意识。
不断探索
Free newsletter
Get the daily AI briefing
Three verified AI stories every weekday morning, written in plain English. Free forever, no ads.
One email each weekday. Unsubscribe in one click. We never sell or share your address.
Test yourself
Take the NYC Local Law 144 and AI Hiring Bias Audits quiz
Instant feedback on every answer, and a shareable certificate with a verifiable ID once you pass a course.
Support free AI education. AI Understanding is a 501(c)(3) nonprofit — no ads, no paywall, ever. Make a donation
常见问题
What is NYC Local Law 144 and AI Hiring Bias Audits?
NYC Local Law 144 requires employers and employment agencies that use automated employment decision tools (AEDTs) for hiring or promotion in New York City to get an independent bias audit each year, publish a summary of the results, and notify candidates before the tool is used. It was one of the first laws anywhere to require bias audits of hiring algorithms, and its early record shows both what such audits can reveal and how hard they are to enforce.
Which agency enforces NYC Local Law 144?
DCWP adopted the rules and began enforcement on July 5, 2023.
How is an impact ratio calculated for a selection tool?
Each category's selection rate is compared with the highest category's selection rate.
How many business days before using an AEDT must candidates be notified?
The law requires notice at least 10 business days before use.
What does Local Law 144 require if an audit shows large disparities?
The law mandates transparency rather than a pass/fail standard, though other anti-discrimination laws still apply.
For tools that output scores, what is the scoring rate?
Scoring rates use the sample median as the cutoff, then are compared across categories.
继续学习
相关指南
为此主题精选的更多指南