upvote

points

by jerrythegerbil1 days ago |
comments
upvoteby falsemyrmidon1 days ago|
next
[-]
You may as well just randomly pick 65 to discard, if your only goal is to reduce the number for review.
reply
upvoteby ayuhito1 days ago|
parent|
[-]
That’s exactly it for large scale hiring with finite resources.

It’s all probabilities in the end. And if an LLM gives you more a more relevant pool vs random distribution, that’s still a net benefit.

reply
upvoteby sevenzero1 days ago|
prev|
next
[-]
What a inhumane way of looking at this. Hiring is deeply flawed, you know it, and yet you keep job postings open for weeks/months in case "the one" magically appears on your doorstep instead of just interviewing 10-20 people and just pick one...

Corpo bullshittery at its finest.

reply
upvoteby LinXitoW1 days ago|
parent|
[-]
What's the alternative? Everyones up in arms, but I see ZERO viable alternatives proposed.

If you have 1000 applications for every job, and you know that a bunch of these applications are "a bad fit", to put it mildly, you have to filter. And you cannot realistically give every resume a good, human look. By the time HR would be done, the market has already moved on five times.

So, what is the real difference between being overlooked because HR could only look at the first 100 resumes, or the AI filtered all 1000 resumes down to 100? In the end, a fuckton of potentially great people get their feelings hurt either way.

reply
upvoteby kasey_junk1 days ago|
parent|
next
[-]
If your hiring pipeline is employing a filter that a) is not better than a random chance and b) is expensive to implement get rid of the filter.

Instead of spending all those resources on resume filtering, hire resume blind. Instead of using llms for a thing they are bad at (subjective decision making) use them to build a deterministic process that isn’t.

Use work sample hiring as the filter. Make the work sample automatic to sign up for and judge.

reply
upvoteby RugnirViking1 days ago|
parent|
prev|
next
[-]
great question. The alternative is not accepting 1000 applicants. Nobody said you have to keep up your job posting for two weeks, or two hours for that matter. stop once you have enough. Enough is defined by whatever number you would have filtered to. In the rare case none of the first ten applicants were appropriate, just open it again until youve got another tranche.
reply
upvoteby jarito1 days ago|
parent|
next
[-]
You are assuming quality applicants are evenly distributed in terms of time of application - they aren’t. If you cut off at 100, you will only get a sample of people spewing fully automated application bots which mostly aren’t what you want.
reply
upvoteby MichaelDickens1 days ago|
parent|
[-]
If that's true, then it suggests an easy fix: leave your application up for four hours, then discard all applications you get for the first two.
reply
upvoteby Arodex1 days ago|
parent|
prev|
[-]
That's just another type of randomness (who was online during the short time the posting was opened).
reply
upvoteby Xirdus1 days ago|
parent|
next
[-]
"Being online during the short time" heavily favors bots. In a way, AI screening tools saved us from the future of everybody buying resume-spamming-as-a-service because it became as important to use these as getting a college degree.
reply
upvoteby RugnirViking1 days ago|
parent|
prev|
next
[-]
right. But if you go online and look for a job, then the ones you are available at that moment will actually read your application
reply
upvoteby sevenzero1 days ago|
parent|
prev|
[-]
At least this would not force applicants to fine tune their applications to the latest LLM bullshit bingo.
reply
upvoteby Xirdus1 days ago|
parent|
prev|
next
[-]
> If you have 1000 applications for every job, and you know that a bunch of these applications are "a bad fit", to put it mildly, you have to filter. And you cannot realistically give every resume a good, human look.

At 10 seconds per resume, it would take you 3 hours to go through all 1000 resumes. I don't know what you consider "good" and "human", but my human eyes could easily do good enough, fully manual pre-screening at a rate of 1 requisition per day.

reply
upvoteby BeetleB1 days ago|
parent|
[-]
> At 10 seconds per resume, it would take you 3 hours to go through all 1000 resumes.

At 10 seconds per resume, I would not assume that you're screening better than the LLM.

reply
upvoteby AlexeyBelov15 hours ago|
parent|
[-]
You could remove the least relevant resumes very quickly. Maybe not 10 seconds, but 30 seconds per resume for sure.

What I hear happens now: people apply for a "Senior Golang SWE" with 2 years of experience with C#. Or, relevant for hiring in the US, the job posting says the visa is required, but people apply without it anyway.

reply
upvoteby bee_rider1 days ago|
parent|
prev|
next
[-]
It’s weird because unemployment is still quite low, right?

Maybe a platform could be designed where candidates have one account for multiple companies, and the number of applications on the platform is limited to, say, ten per person per month or something. To get people to be selective. I don’t think this should be the only way to apply, but maybe the companies involved could look there first.

reply
upvoteby sevenzero1 days ago|
parent|
prev|
[-]
>instead of just interviewing 10-20 people and just pick one

Here's a realistic proposition. HR just wants to inflate numbers so that they seem busy looking for the right fit. Keep posting open for 1 week, manually filter for another week, invite people, employ one. Plenty of people with degrees looking for jobs right now, I don't see what's the issue with just trying one. Companies desperately look for the "magic" applicant that checks all boxes, while also trying to pay them almost minimum wage.

reply
upvoteby Brian_K_White1 days ago|
prev|
[-]
This reasoning isn't.
reply