West Region of Hub International.

About:

Cory Jorbin –  Consults with employers of all sizes to design, implement and ensure the compliance of employee benefit plans. Enjoys finding creative and practical solutions to problems created by complex laws and regulations. 

Cory Jorbin: I currently hold the position of Chief Compliance Officer at Hub's West Region. My role primarily involves working with clients on various aspects of employee benefit plan compliance. I closely collaborate with employers to ensure their plans are in compliance with regulations. My introduction to Artificial Intelligence (AI) in the Human Resources (HR) domain came through employers using AI to draft benefits-related policies. What intrigued me was that while these policies seemed confident, they often overlooked critical considerations. This led me to explore the field further, recognizing its growing importance. Many employers are adopting AI, and my passion lies in educating them on its proper use – what to do and what to avoid. The key takeaway I've gathered is that while AI is a valuable tool, it doesn't replace human expertise. It's just one of many tools in the toolbox, alongside the experts that employers typically rely on.

Carrie Cherveny: I also hold the position of Chief Compliance Officer, but in the Southeast Region. My primary focus is on employment law, although I provide guidance on benefits, similar to Corey. My background is in employment law defense, which eventually led me into the realm of artificial intelligence. I became involved due to the employee relations implications and the guidance issued by government agencies responsible for enforcing employment laws in the US, such as the Department of Labor, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, and the National Labor Relations Board.

In your expertise within employee benefits and overall employee operations, what are the current challenges employers face, particularly regarding the use of AI, and how can employees effectively navigate through this changing landscape?

Carrie Cherveny: From an employee relations perspective, there are pros and cons to using AI in HR, and we've been discussing this extensively at HUB. When considering AI in HR, you must first identify its appropriate and risky applications. AI is excellent for organizing and analyzing large data sets, but when it takes on roles like engaging in the interactive process under the Americans with Disabilities Act or screening candidates through chatbot interviews and resume filtering, there's a risk that it may inadvertently filter people out based on protected conditions or classes.

For instance, imagine an AI interview process where a candidate with a speech impediment participates in a video interview or someone from an underserved community with limited English skills applies. AI might filter them out as unqualified, even though the job doesn't require advanced language skills or the absence of a speech impediment. AI lacks this understanding; it's just technology. Therefore, it's crucial to thoroughly test AI applications to determine where they can provide assistance and where they might pose risks.

Cory Jorbin: I see employers falling into two categories. First, some are not using AI due to fear or lack of understanding. On the other hand, there are employers who embrace AI. For the latter group, it's vital to recognize that AI has limitations. It can be a useful tool, but, as Carrie pointed out, it has its constraints.

For example, when using a tool like chatGPT, it generates text confidently, even if the information it provides isn't entirely accurate. Employers should not treat this information as the law, unless it specifically cites legal sources, which I've rarely seen. Employers must realize that the information from chatGPT or similar tools has its boundaries.

Carrie: “It's crucial to thoroughly test AI applications to determine where they can provide assistance and where they might pose risks.”

Cory: “Chatbots can assist with certain tasks but may struggle with others, potentially leading to frustrating experiences for users trying to reach a human.”

Just as Carrie mentioned the importance of pressure testing AI systems, I believe employers should verify the accuracy of information obtained from chatGPT-type tools, especially when making critical decisions. My main takeaway is that while AI is valuable and will continue to grow, employers must always remember to keep the human essence in human resources.

Carrie Cherveny: I remember the days when I used Monster.com for resume searches and filtering. Back then, employers received hundreds of candidates for a single job opening, and it was a different job market. Managing and processing such a volume of resumes and applications was a challenge. Monster.com was a valuable tool because it filtered and sorted resumes based on specified criteria.

Now, AI serves a similar purpose. However, the difference lies in the fact that AI can, in theory, be trained, but human oversight remains crucial. Look at the candidates who ended up at the bottom of the pile, those who were filtered out or deemed unqualified by AI. Pressure test this group—were these individuals genuinely unqualified, or did AI exclude them for a potentially protected or unjustified reason? As Corey frequently says, trust AI, but also verify its decisions.

To discuss the strategies you each employ in guiding your teams and educating employers about the use and benefits of AI within their operations, could you share your specific approaches and tactics?

Cory Jorbin: I sometimes use AI, specifically chatGPT, and here's my personal strategy. First, I assess whether it provides relevant information or if it's off the mark. Knowing what I'm looking for is crucial. As an attorney, I can swiftly verify the accuracy of its output. I tend to use it to enhance the language or make information more accessible, often summarizing data I feed into it rather than seeking answers. I wouldn't rely solely on its responses because I must independently verify any information it provides. Additionally, I've noticed that content generated by chatGPT often sounds like it was drafted by AI, not a human. So, trust but verify and acknowledge its limitations.

Carrie Cherveny: For me, AI is like the extra seasoning to enhance the flavor of a meal. I view it as a supplement, another resource, and a tool, especially when dealing with vast data sets for analytics to build strategies and gain insights. However, it cannot replace human work entirely. When you input a query into chatGPT, it assembles words based on programming, offering results without sources. As Corey often mentions, there are no sources to cross-check its responses. I see it as one avenue among many, useful for generating creative ideas, but not a standalone solution, especially in the compliance world where we lawyers crave verifiable evidence and information. However, for more creative projects, chatGPT can be a valuable resource.

Looking ahead to the future of employee benefits and employee relations, I'd like to hear your thoughts on potential disruptions and transformations that we might see in the coming years.

Cory Jorbin: I'd first point out the low-hanging fruit, which is the continued growth of AI in analytics. AI excels in this field, and we're likely to see its expanded use. Another area of focus is employee education, especially for fundamental questions, like those related to benefits. Questions such as understanding deductibles, out-of-pocket maximums, or requesting replacement ID cards are prime examples. While these capabilities already exist to some extent, they will likely become more sophisticated and accessible. This means that tasks like ID card requests, which used to involve human intervention, can now be handled by AI. Consequently, employees in these roles can concentrate on tasks that genuinely require human attention.

Additionally, I'd like to mention a concept Jeff Faber, our National Chief Strategy Officer, brought up–"level zero." This concept underscores a challenge as AI chatbots become more common. These chatbots can assist with certain tasks but may struggle with others, potentially leading to frustrating experiences for users trying to reach a human.

Carrie Cherveny: When using AI in employment relationships, it's crucial to ensure that accessing a human remains easy and seamless. Corey's example, while not directly related to HR, highlights the frustration of reaching a human when needed. This frustration can translate into negative cultural impacts, increased turnover, and employee dissatisfaction. Making AI a part of the HR equation requires a balance where employees can still readily connect with human resources.

I'd like to share a recent conversation with my neighbor, who teaches ChatGPT. She shared, when it provides incorrect answers, she corrects it, leading to its growth and becoming more intelligent over time. While I was initially skeptical, this illustrates the future direction. The future involves continuous AI growth and adaptation, but maintaining human accessibility and oversight is crucial.