I genuinely don’t understand the point of candidate filters like this. Is it that corporate has drank the kool-aid, and think the job they are hiring for genuinely requires some 1-in-1000 skillset?
Every time, somebody says “yeah but they get thousands of applications a day, how could they possibly handle all that?!”
… Don’t. Just, filter them through some basic metrics, and then rank the ones that are left through a random number generator. Interview those candidates in order until you find a good fit.
The average job doesn’t benefit at all from hiring people who can specifically pass some bizarre reverse Turing test, and the average video interview should only cost you 15-30 minutes of (also underpaid) HR salary, which is certainly less than a contract with these AI vendors + the increased risk of discrimination lawsuits.
… No? My whole point is that they don’t need to process and assess every last applicant with things like the AI in this post. If - through the process I just described - they only actually assess 50 randomly selected applicants out of the 1000 when they find a good one, there’s nothing wrong with that. Send an automated rejection to the other 950 and move on.
So again we’re back to " just handle it" you people don’t seem to realize there are thousands of people around the world who spend their entire life coming up with different ways to “handle it” and you think your little five minute thought is just so profound that no one has ever considered it.
… I’m sorry if you’ve spent your entire life on this, but this is bizarrely hostile. Countless people have spent countless hours hiring candidates without AI. This isn’t some genius-level solution to an unsolved problem, this is just an attempt to downsize HR departments.
The company doesn’t suffer some material loss if they miss out on hiring a marginally better candidate, and it’s not like these AI solutions have been around long enough to prove that they can even find the “best” candidates. Especially when they’re certainly filtering out qualified professionals who don’t want to justify themselves to a glorified chatbot.
And they hired people before phones and shoes and lots of other things. You all sound like the Amish. Just picking a random time period and saying “nope this is good enough”. No it’s the people I’m here suggesting they filter out qualified people by just randomly selecting people out of a pool to hire.
Before shoes? Amish? My goodness. I didn’t realize I was a savage Luddite. I’m on the most pro-AI instance in the fediverse, I literally think it has incredible potential, and I personally use the technology.
It’s not ready to evaluate humans on any level, it’s dehumanizing to force humans to talk to it for money, and it’s definitely going to filter out skilled professionals who don’t want to do that. As opposed to RNG, which is just as likely to filter out good as bad, and so has a net neutral impact on your hiring pool.
I’m not saying “stick to the past” I’m saying “hey maybe take it easy over there, we don’t need to rush into a cyberpunk dystopia. We can take our time.”
I don’t understand why some people are so obsessed with this and why they make comments like this. Like what’s the point? To be smug and act like you’re better because you know that it wasn’t actually Kool-Aid used in Jonestown? Do you think it’s actually a public service? Do you have some vested interest in Kool-Aid and feel the need to defend their good name? Let me let you in on a little secret- most people know it wasn’t actually Kool-Aid but was a competitor’s product. However, it doesn’t fucking matter because that’s not the saying. If you say “Oh Jim isn’t using toothpaste because he drank the flavor aid and thinks fluoride is government mind control” the person you’re talking to will just look at you weird. It’s like getting pissed off at someone saying “a bird in the hand is worth two in the bush” by saying “uhuh well actshually the birds have the same monetary value regardless of whether they are located in a bush or in someone’s hand I am very smart”
I genuinely don’t understand the point of candidate filters like this. Is it that corporate has drank the kool-aid, and think the job they are hiring for genuinely requires some 1-in-1000 skillset?
Every time, somebody says “yeah but they get thousands of applications a day, how could they possibly handle all that?!”
… Don’t. Just, filter them through some basic metrics, and then rank the ones that are left through a random number generator. Interview those candidates in order until you find a good fit.
The average job doesn’t benefit at all from hiring people who can specifically pass some bizarre reverse Turing test, and the average video interview should only cost you 15-30 minutes of (also underpaid) HR salary, which is certainly less than a contract with these AI vendors + the increased risk of discrimination lawsuits.
Lmao. Your suggestion for they can’t handle to many applicants is to…just handle it.
… No? My whole point is that they don’t need to process and assess every last applicant with things like the AI in this post. If - through the process I just described - they only actually assess 50 randomly selected applicants out of the 1000 when they find a good one, there’s nothing wrong with that. Send an automated rejection to the other 950 and move on.
You’ve never hired anyone have ya. So you’d pass up a PhD in favor of a random just because he didn’t make it the random 50.
So again we’re back to " just handle it" you people don’t seem to realize there are thousands of people around the world who spend their entire life coming up with different ways to “handle it” and you think your little five minute thought is just so profound that no one has ever considered it.
… I’m sorry if you’ve spent your entire life on this, but this is bizarrely hostile. Countless people have spent countless hours hiring candidates without AI. This isn’t some genius-level solution to an unsolved problem, this is just an attempt to downsize HR departments.
The company doesn’t suffer some material loss if they miss out on hiring a marginally better candidate, and it’s not like these AI solutions have been around long enough to prove that they can even find the “best” candidates. Especially when they’re certainly filtering out qualified professionals who don’t want to justify themselves to a glorified chatbot.
And they hired people before phones and shoes and lots of other things. You all sound like the Amish. Just picking a random time period and saying “nope this is good enough”. No it’s the people I’m here suggesting they filter out qualified people by just randomly selecting people out of a pool to hire.
Before shoes? Amish? My goodness. I didn’t realize I was a savage Luddite. I’m on the most pro-AI instance in the fediverse, I literally think it has incredible potential, and I personally use the technology.
It’s not ready to evaluate humans on any level, it’s dehumanizing to force humans to talk to it for money, and it’s definitely going to filter out skilled professionals who don’t want to do that. As opposed to RNG, which is just as likely to filter out good as bad, and so has a net neutral impact on your hiring pool.
I’m not saying “stick to the past” I’m saying “hey maybe take it easy over there, we don’t need to rush into a cyberpunk dystopia. We can take our time.”
*Flavor Aid
I don’t understand why some people are so obsessed with this and why they make comments like this. Like what’s the point? To be smug and act like you’re better because you know that it wasn’t actually Kool-Aid used in Jonestown? Do you think it’s actually a public service? Do you have some vested interest in Kool-Aid and feel the need to defend their good name? Let me let you in on a little secret- most people know it wasn’t actually Kool-Aid but was a competitor’s product. However, it doesn’t fucking matter because that’s not the saying. If you say “Oh Jim isn’t using toothpaste because he drank the flavor aid and thinks fluoride is government mind control” the person you’re talking to will just look at you weird. It’s like getting pissed off at someone saying “a bird in the hand is worth two in the bush” by saying “uhuh well actshually the birds have the same monetary value regardless of whether they are located in a bush or in someone’s hand I am very smart”
Kool Aid is the brand name that ended up generic in meaning, like Scotch tape and bandaid.
I bet you call it the “Spanish Flu” too.