[HN Gopher] Recruiters are going analog to fight the AI applicat...
___________________________________________________________________
Recruiters are going analog to fight the AI application overload
Author : chapulin
Score : 36 points
Date : 2024-05-05 18:32 UTC (4 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (www.wired.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (www.wired.com)
| datadrivenangel wrote:
| https://archive.is/I3WjA
| neonate wrote:
| https://web.archive.org/web/20240505164924/https://www.wired...
| datadrivenangel wrote:
| To summarize the article though: Online hiring continues to be
| overwhelmed by huge numbers of low quality applications, now with
| some extra AI tools that make it easier to lie about your
| experience.
|
| Same issue as before, now wrapped up in OpenAI API calls.
| mistrial9 wrote:
| you forgot the second part -- a rush by industry management to
| open the gates to low-skill people for lower pay, while
| specifically and exactly firing or replacing more experienced
| people who ask for higher compensation and employee rights (for
| example working parents or a slower pace over a long time)
| dang wrote:
| We detached this subthread from
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40265635.
| yieldcrv wrote:
| I think this is conflating some things,
|
| I've had interviews where AI use was encouraged. I've used a
| coderpad screenshare that had an LLM tab you could write with.
|
| so in this article, where they mention some of the respondents
| disclosed using AI, it doesnt say if that was a "good" or "bad"
| thing _for that company_
|
| its not accurate to assume, despite the article reinforcing a
| bias towards it being a problem
| Simulacra wrote:
| Serves them right. Employers have been using AI and algorithms to
| weed out resumes/applications for years. To the point that the
| only way to get seen by an actual human is the game the system.
| bastawhiz wrote:
| Exactly, I came here looking for this comment. Many companies
| have been using AI tools for years to power recruiting. Now
| they're upset that candidates are using the same technology.
| The recruiters turned their profession into a tit for tat arms
| race.
| ToucanLoucan wrote:
| Hard agree. It's infuriating that automation is continually
| added to human centric processes that it is ill-suited and
| anti-social to be used in, very much including most LLM
| applications, always in the name of more bloody cost-cutting
| that almost never leads to lower prices for consumers, just
| more yachts for the executive class.
| LikelyABurner wrote:
| The thing that especially infuriates me is recruiters in this
| article turning around and trying to throw LinkedIn under the
| bus.
|
| No one likes the nightmare dystopia of a platform that is
| LinkedIn. The only reason most people I know have LinkedIn
| accounts in the first place is because HR types have outsourced
| so much of their job to LinkedIn that it's viewed as
| professional suicide to _not_ have a LinkedIn profile with 100s
| of contacts in this industry.
|
| Recruiters don't like the GenAI and Easy Apply features on
| LinkedIn, it makes their jobs more difficult? Then stop making
| LinkedIn a mandatory account for tech workers. You have NO ONE
| to blame but yourselves.
| Simulacra wrote:
| It would be interesting if they just went back to paper
| resumes and applications. That takes effort, only a little
| bit, but it takes effort.
| surfingdino wrote:
| What gets me is that they request a CV even though my whole
| work history is already on LI. My CV is just a reformatted LI
| profile. But then again, recruiters are mostly sociology,
| political science, or philosophy grads who chose an easy
| degree thinking they were clever and found themselves being
| used as a mop in the Victorian sweatshop that is the
| recruitment industry.
| IshKebab wrote:
| I like linkedin. It got me my current job. I get a constant
| stream of recruiters looking for people in my field; if I
| want a new job I'm pretty sure I can just reply to a few of
| them and not have to actually apply at all.
|
| Just don't read any of the nonsense that people post.
| KallDrexx wrote:
| Two wrongs don't make a right.
|
| AI being weaponized on the application side hurts us all, and
| leads to an environment that's extremely difficult to get
| noticed in as a job seeker. Yes, networking helps but that's
| not always possible, especially if you are trying to change
| industries or have generally worked with smaller companies
| where your networking doesn't expand out much.
|
| It also leads to less diverse environments where hiring
| managers only look at resumes given by friends or friends of
| friends.
| neilv wrote:
| > _That came after LinkedIn began rolling out a new set of
| generative AI tools for recruiters to source candidates in
| October. With the sourcing tool, recruiters can search a phrase
| like "I want to hire engineers in Texas," and profiles of people
| that may meet those criteria appear, as do other specific skills
| that may be related to the role. They can also send messages
| written with generative AI and set automatic follow-up messages._
|
| What are better alternatives to LinkedIn, for people who want to
| get that rare serendipitous message from a recruiter?
|
| (Not just another company that wants to behave like LinkedIn when
| they can get away with it, but that wants to be and is a lot
| better.)
| Euphorbium wrote:
| Go rockclimbing and meet cto's there.
| xw38011 wrote:
| > What are better alternatives to LinkedIn, for people who want
| to get that rare serendipitous message from a recruiter?
|
| The only one I know of is to have a personal social network of
| people who know you and are directly familiar with your work.
| Every rare serendipitous message from a recruiter I've received
| resulted from a referral from someone I directly knew.
|
| But rare is probably the correct qualifier. I have 25 years
| experience, I've received four, followed up on two and only one
| resulted in me changing jobs. None came before I had 10 years
| of experience. YMMV
| joshstrange wrote:
| Hacker News monthly threads for "Who wants to be hired" and
| "Who is hiring". That's how I got hired for my current job
| (2019) and that's how I'm hiring currently.
| ohthatsnotright wrote:
| All I got from that was some spam and "defi" recruiting for
| whatever Ponzi scheme the cryptocoin community is hot on
| right now.
| CogitoCogito wrote:
| I got my current job from it.
|
| No idea which experience is more typical.
| mvdtnz wrote:
| Yeah I'm still getting spam from sketchy crypto orgs months
| after I put my email into a HN hiring thread once. Don't
| recommend.
| everybodyknows wrote:
| Consider a "burner" email alias for such situations.
| Fastmail makes creating them easy enough.
| herpdyderp wrote:
| Apple's iCloud+ also includes "hide my email" which
| creates randomized addresses that forward to your main
| account.
| nradov wrote:
| Most industries have some kind of private discussion forums,
| which could be sponsored by a professional organization or
| related media company or just some guy. Those used to be email
| lists and web discussion forums but now some have moved to
| Slack or Discord. Find those forums for industries where you're
| interested in working and start actively participating.
| elicksaur wrote:
| +1! think your local tech scene (my city has a general dev
| slack), language or framework specific chats for web or
| mobile dev, hackathons/conferences, etc.
|
| Would personally stay away from anyone offering to be part of
| a "community" for a fee
| neilv wrote:
| Is there an alternative we can practically move to that will
| turn LinkedIn into an abandoned property like MySpace?
|
| (Ideal would be a distributed approach with semantic Web and
| such. But I'd settle for a centralized site that wanted to be a
| lot better, and was capable of that.)
| altdataseller wrote:
| This problem is exasperated by the fact that recruiters are often
| the ones getting laid off first in a downturn or cost effiency
| initiative. So there's even less humans filtering through
| applications.
|
| Even though it's an issue I really don't see companies spending a
| ton of time and energy fixing it. As mentioned in the article,
| they could simply stop posting jobs on LinkedIn or rely only on
| inbound candidates. It's not rocket science. Just like dating, if
| you get bombarded with peoole knocking on your door, simply stop
| putting yourself out there.
| kthejoker2 wrote:
| Exacerbated*
| mathgeek wrote:
| Both words are appropriate, as exasperated means "made worse
| or more intense". They are synonyms.
| ics wrote:
| Exasperated, or exasperation, is a feeling experienced by a
| person. Exacerbation describes a change in quality of
| something (usually inanimate).
| mathgeek wrote:
| Correct, although IMHO it's also fine to use exacerbation
| in this specific example (if you see the problem from a
| process standpoint instead of the frustration faced by
| job seekers and recruiters).
| kthejoker2 wrote:
| Fo any other professions have thse challenges?
|
| Our lack of basic professional certifications has just led to
| nonsense in every corner of the hiring and job seeking process.
| zarzavat wrote:
| There are professional certifications they are just useless.
| The same goes for university degrees. The field moves too fast
| for certification to have any value. Perhaps if you do
| something very "enterprise" it might be useful.
| AnthonyMouse wrote:
| The uselessness of professional certifications isn't because
| things move too fast. The fundamentals don't really change.
|
| The certifications are useless because they're paper mills,
| driven by the same incentives as grade inflation. People get
| upset if they pay for the certification and then fail the
| test -- and those are the certification mill's customers, so
| that can't be allowed or people would get some other
| certification. Or worse, some other _vendor 's_
| certification. So they make something easy enough for the
| 10th percentile to pass, or publish a study guide that
| effectively gives you the answers to the test, and then it
| isn't serving as a useful filtering mechanism.
|
| Meanwhile the strongest applicants rightfully see it as a
| waste of money because they can get in on their other
| qualifications or find a job through their networks, or use
| _not_ having it as a reverse filter to eliminate excessively
| bureaucratic employers that use it as a prerequisite, causing
| anyone who requires it to be filtering out more of the best
| applicants than the worst ones.
| zarzavat wrote:
| The fundamentals change all the time. When I learned to
| code everybody was high on Java, you had to know your
| design patterns, craft beautiful inheritance hierarchies
| and all kinds of other things that we now laugh at as being
| very silly. But people were dead serious about it!
|
| This art is still young, we are still finding our feet and
| I don't think certifications are beneficial until we do.
| What we need is more experimentation and free thinking not
| a general ossification.
| AnthonyMouse wrote:
| The things that change aren't the fundamentals.
|
| Meanwhile people still read the papers that came out of
| Bell Labs in the mid-20th century, boolean logic is
| boolean logic, exponential time algorithms are slower
| than polynomial time algorithms for large N, the lambda
| calculus is still taught, etc.
| Uehreka wrote:
| What are you talking about? We have tons of professional
| certifications. We also still have all of these problems.
| dang wrote:
| Can you please make your substantive points without swipes?
| Your comment would be just fine without that first bit.
|
| https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
| eikenberry wrote:
| The challenge for certifying in software engineering seems
| similar to the challenges you'd face in any creative, building
| oriented professions. That is you can't test for it with some
| sort of standard exam. You need to have the person build
| something and then have established masters of the field
| evaluate it. But that requires a professional structure we
| don't have.
| ghaff wrote:
| Relatively few engineers of any kind (outside of Civil
| Engineering)--much less other STEM--have PE licenses in the
| US. They're mostly required if you're going to be signing off
| on things for regulators etc. You _could_ do it but now you
| require a 4+ year degree, exams, and some years of working
| under a certified engineer.
| vunderba wrote:
| Many other engineering disciplines have a PE exam, including
| mechanical engineering and electrical engineering. I'm not
| sure why you believe that software engineering is somehow
| more difficult to test in a rigorous manner than those
| fields.
|
| In point of fact, computer science did at one point have an
| official equivalent PE exam, but it was bafflingly removed a
| few years ago though I'm not entirely clear on the reason.
|
| This is exactly what happens when you don't gate keep enough
| - employers lose all trust in potential candidates core
| competencies, and thus we have the increasing arms race of 40
| hour multi project 12 course interviews.
| mead5432 wrote:
| My partner has been searching for an SDE job for 8 months and
| recently received an email requesting her to do a recruiter
| screen. She responded and got a call instantly where the
| "recruiter was a text-to-speech AI.
|
| Presumably the entire process was automated; I'm assuming if
| they're using text-to-speech, the selection and initial email was
| all AI.
|
| It's an arms race on both sides.
| the_snooze wrote:
| It's the curse of scale. Automation allows there to be plenty
| of job postings and job applications, but it sidelines the
| human part of actually talking to someone. Those in the know
| will end up sidestepping this altogether and using their
| networks to get a direct line to a real hiring manager or
| applicant. I've done this myself where I talk to past
| collaborators and professors I know and ask "Do you have an
| intern/soon-to-graduate-student you recommend with skills X, Y,
| and Z?"
|
| This is admittedly unfair to outsiders, but if you talk to
| someone, there's a high reputational pressure that assures
| you're dealing with a real person who's likely a decent match
| for the job/applicant. This is valuable precisely because
| there's high friction and doesn't scale.
| Danaemp wrote:
| That's why we're building Touvlo.co (for hardware engineers)
| - human engineer interviewers, interviewing humans on real
| world applicable engineering skills, more fair to outsiders,
| standardized, scaleable!
| mead5432 wrote:
| I generally agree that relying on a network and human
| referrals is the way to go but building an effective network
| is much harder than it used to be. Meetup groups and local
| conferences were a good source to make connections pre-
| pandemic but that has really withered in the last couple
| years.
|
| Past collaborators are also a great source but she is junior
| and doesn't really have any she can leverage.
|
| My initial advice to her was do some real projects, document
| her work and insights in a blog and engage with others on
| social media but that's mostly screaming into a void.
|
| My approach to hiring is to focus on competencies (what do I
| need them to accomplish) rather than skills (how many years
| of JS) but that doesn't cut down on the number of applicants
| any, just makes initial eval a little easier. I was pondering
| the idea of leaning in more on AI to screen on competencies
| which might incentivize higher information density on resumes
| but the quality of that eval might not actually be any better
| and only increase the "black box"-ness of it all.
| JumpCrisscross wrote:
| > _building an effective network is much harder than it
| used to be_
|
| If you're in an American city, go to cafes and bars. Be the
| annoying person who asks what someone does and persist.
| It's absolutely annoying. But I'll also always follow up on
| it, because that skill in itself is differentiating.
| Citizen_Lame wrote:
| Absolutely pathetic. Might as well become worm.
| JumpCrisscross wrote:
| > _Absolutely pathetic_
|
| It seems to be a class-based social more. Among the rich
| and upper-middle class, approaching someone to introduce
| yourself isn't unfavourable. If anything, it's seen as a
| right and children are taught to do it. Among the lower
| classes it's seen as uncouthe.
|
| You see it strikingly at _e.g._ birthday parties and
| galas. (Particularly in the U.K., Western and Southern
| Europe. Though there, unfortunately, such cold
| introductions usually aren 't enough to cross the
| barrier. Hence my qualification for this only working in
| American cities. Also Nordic countries. It even extends
| to the design of social spaces, with private clubs and
| even elite airline lounges having chairs face each other
| while tables at fast food places are more isolated.)
| wormius wrote:
| You rang?
| nnurmanov wrote:
| My suggestion is to focus on a fewer number of companies,
| instead of sending resume in bulk. When you narrow your
| choices you can study well and notice bugs or issues that
| need to be addressed. Fix them, send the results to someone
| in the company, it will increase your chances
| substantially.
| fwip wrote:
| It's a sad day when the answer is "do unpaid labor for a
| chance to be noticed."
| justahuman74 wrote:
| I can understand having to respond if it's been 8 months, but
| this is a pretty big red flag that the company doesn't respect
| humans.
| mead5432 wrote:
| It's a giant telecom company that already had some pretty big
| red flags around how they treat employees from my own
| network.
|
| The best part is that she already interviewed there a while
| back. She got a backend interview and didn't pass (she's
| primarily frontend); not a big deal but she gets a message
| from a new recruiter about every 2-3 months about the same
| role. This time it was just AI doing it.
| conradfr wrote:
| AI startup idea, CaaS, candidate as a service.
| RobotToaster wrote:
| Anyone have a text-to-speech AI to talk to recruiter text-to-
| speech AIs?
| mead5432 wrote:
| I love that idea. Record the messages and use that to fine
| tune your own language model to improve the chances of
| talking to a real person? If she does that and can't get a
| job, the market is officially broken.
| euroderf wrote:
| Yeah but if it's a local minimum and legal too, nothing
| will change.
| selimthegrim wrote:
| This is _Real Genius_ but on the job market
| moneywoes wrote:
| yes interested
| kgermino wrote:
| Yep, I just had this happen too. I'm not looking nearly that
| seriously but the position as described was nearly perfect. The
| AI phone call plus a couple other minor details (slight changes
| in the description/requirements) which could probably be easily
| cleared up with a human made me distrust the entire process and
| walk away.
|
| It's incredibly annoying
| Aurornis wrote:
| > It's an arms race on both sides.
|
| In my experience, the AI-vs-AI hiring battle takes place in
| parallel to normal hiring pipelines. Even before ChatGPT went
| mainstream, recruiting for key roles was largely happening via
| referrals or scraping LinkedIn for people at target companies.
|
| When I posted jobs (for a moderately well known company name)
| on public job boards, we'd get 1000s of applications within the
| first week long before people were using ChatGPT to fill out
| applications. The majority of the submissions were absolute
| junk: People spamming their resume to every job out there,
| resumes from people completely unqualified (like tech support
| people applying for Staff Software Engineer roles), or mad-libs
| style resumes where people threw word salad into a PDF while
| forgetting to tell me what they actually did ("spearheaded
| initiative to reach across the company and leverage synergies,
| increasing company revenue by 23%")
|
| It has been like this for a long time. ChatGPT only seems to
| have emboldened more people to switch to spamming resumes and
| sending vacuous applications everywhere.
| typeofhuman wrote:
| Please let this become a trend elsewhere as well.
| yinser wrote:
| Is it possible to waste a recruiters time?
| chad_strategic wrote:
| Out of pure frustration, I have written code to do this.
| robertclaus wrote:
| My experience the last few months is that the saying "It's who
| you know, not what you know." is alive and well. For jobs where I
| met the hiring manager (referral, networking, etc.) I had 2 out
| of 3 applications lead to offers. For resumes submitted online I
| had 1 out of 50 even respond.
|
| Obviously there's some alignment - I know people working in the
| area I know best - but from what I've experienced the hiring
| teams at small companies are struggling almost as much as
| candidates to figure out this brave new world.
| chipdart wrote:
| > For jobs where I met the hiring manager (referral,
| networking, etc.) I had 2 out of 3 applications lead to offers.
| For resumes submitted online I had 1 out of 50 even respond.
|
| I don't think this means what you think it means. In fact, I
| only see survivorship bias in your personal anecdote.
|
| Meeting the hiring manager usually takes place after resume
| filtering. This means that you received offers in processes
| where you weren't rejected at the very first stage. That's
| what's expected, isn't it?
|
| Also, it's quite plausible that those hiring processes where
| you received no feedback happened to be fake job postings
| where, even though a job ad is posted, there is no job offer at
| all.
| ghaff wrote:
| I don't know. Every job since the one out of grad school--
| admittedly only a few (I tend to stay at jobs for a long
| time)--involved pinging someone I knew well (former co-
| worker/client/consultant who worked for us). HR or recruiter
| was never involved until later in the process so no HR
| filtering involved.
| kgermino wrote:
| I think the question is how are you meeting the hiring
| manager?
|
| If you submit a resume to a recruiter (or worse, online job
| posting) and get to the hiring manager you've absolutely gone
| through a bunch of formal screening steps. However if, as I
| believe GP is describing, you're able to connect with them
| through a side channel (such as a referral) you usually
| haven't gone through the formal screening so much as you've
| skipped it entirely. That obviously will dramatically
| increase your odds of success but it's not the same as
| getting through the resume scan and HR filter
| chipdart wrote:
| > I think the question is how are you meeting the hiring
| manager?
|
| In each and every single time I met a hiring manager, that
| took place after the early interview rounds where the bulk
| of applicants were filtered out.
|
| In some cases, the hiring manager was the very last
| interview.
|
| To me, claiming that meeting the hiring manager is somehow
| the key step to get hired is like stating that the key step
| to get hired is to not be rejected.
| bddgyrdfv wrote:
| The entire point was that you meet the hiring manager via
| personal referral and _not_ by running the gauntlet.
|
| Otherwise, yes, it's tautological.
| meristohm wrote:
| > referral, networking, etc
|
| Presumably not through the bottom-up filtering process.
|
| All of my current jobs (I'm in my 40s, been working for money
| outside the family since my teens), and most of all the jobs
| I've ever had, were thanks to reaching out to individuals to
| make a connection, or leveraging an existing connection.
| lolc wrote:
| I got my first job through family. From then on, I found
| all jobs through job ads.
| euroderf wrote:
| > So far, over 3,000 people have applied to one open data science
| vacancy at a US health tech company this year. The top candidates
| are given a lengthy and difficult task assessment, which very few
| pass
|
| Obviously the company should select one large project, break it
| down (with the help of AI) into 1500 steps, and farm it out to
| candidates as "task assessments" that can be cross-checked and
| then folded together into an app.
| hn_throwaway_99 wrote:
| The interesting thing to me reading this is that it's basically
| saying how much _recruiters and hiring managers_ dislike /are
| wary of this AI-infused job application process. On the flip
| side, I've heard tons of complaints on the other side from job
| seekers: not just that job hunting is hard in a down market, but
| that the reign of modern ATSes means that it's a constant "battle
| against the algorithm" to even get noticed, tons of fake or
| outdated job postings, and rarely even an acknowledgement about
| the state of the application.
|
| I mention this because this seems like an area where lots of
| people wanted to throw AI at the problem, but I have a tough time
| finding anyone, on either side, that thinks that automation and
| AI improves the process in any way.
| dangus wrote:
| You hit the nail on the head there.
|
| All these applicant aid products like AutoApplyAI are solving
| the problem that _employers_ created. It's been a huge burden
| for applicants to go through the process. Any tool I can use to
| automate my job application process is something I'm going to
| immediately be interested in.
|
| Plus, applicants need the job to survive, while the employers
| aren't really on that same level of desperation.
| Dah00n wrote:
| If they use recruiters, I'm out. They are part of the problem.
| mmcconnell1618 wrote:
| Do you differentiate between a full time recruiter employed by
| the hiring company and 3rd party recruiting firms? A recruiter
| on the payroll can be a useful first screen and usually has
| good knowledge about what the company is seeking.
| knallfrosch wrote:
| I have to say that recruiters are worthless _to me_ because
| they don 't have the authority to actually decide something.
| They know nothing about the role, they don't disclose their
| salary range, I don't trust them with mine either.. but hey,
| if it's a short call, it a hoop you have to jump through.
|
| At least the company recruiters never call you again.
| noobermin wrote:
| To dang, is this a bug? This was posted 8 minutes ago with 8
| points yet has 40+ comments
| erik_seaberg wrote:
| Some of the comments were from 2-3 hours ago. I think someone
| bumped the story's time by resubmitting.
| dang wrote:
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40265420 made the front
| page but chapulin was the first user to post the article and I
| wanted them to get the credit. Their original submission was
| too old to re-up (a la
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26998308) so I made a
| fresh copy of it and moved the comments.
|
| It does make the timestamp thing (https://hn.algolia.com/?dateR
| ange=all&page=0&prefix=true&que...) even more confusing than
| usual. Sorry!
| nnurmanov wrote:
| Attention is all you need. This is the success formula. You can
| get attention via referrals or some other hacks.
| Aurornis wrote:
| I've participated in a coaching and resume review program for
| many years. Most college students always struggled to write
| resumes, but at least they were aware of their shortcomings and
| reached out for help.
|
| Something about ChatGPT has convinced a lot of them that they
| don't need help or even to put much effort into the process. They
| hate writing resumes, so they just dump some words into a ChatGPT
| prompt and copy-paste into a resumse.
|
| To the inexperienced, the ChatGPT structure feels like brilliant,
| polished content magically appearing on their screen. They aren't
| looking at the content, but rather the structure, which ChatGPT
| can formulaically provide.
|
| Then recruiters get their resumes and instantly recognize ChatGPT
| garbage, because it's their job to read resumes and they've
| become good at recognizing low signal to noise ratio ChatGPT
| output.
|
| One of our local college programs had a company reach out and ask
| to be removed from their referral pipeline because the majority
| of the resumes submitted by their students were clearly ChatGPT
| drivel. It was a real blow to the people who had been working
| hard to set up these relationships and give the students
| opportunities to apply for.
| marcosdumay wrote:
| The exact same dynamic used to happen with Word templates, and
| I'm sure there were something similar before it.
|
| Then entire idea of a resume is garbage, the thing is useless
| for filtering candidates, and everybody that actually succeeds
| at either side of the hiring game does it by not relying on
| resumes. Yet hiring professionals insist this is the way,
| worldwide.
| esafak wrote:
| A new problem I'm facing on the hiring end is an influx of
| imposters from Asia. Everything they claim is a lie, from their
| name, citizenship, location, picture, to their job history. They
| even set up fake company sites. And of course they use LLMs to
| help them pass the interview. I assume it's so they can bilk
| gullible companies and perhaps do some corporate espionage. I
| don't know. I haven't encountered anyone try to deepfake their
| voice and appearance but I assume it's a question of time.
|
| Telltale signs: stilted English, poor internet connection, lack
| of LinkedIn connections, and an inability to drill down on their
| fake histories. One claimed to have contributed to an open source
| BI project while working at Facebook, so I pulled up its GitHub
| repo and said "Let's see your code". "It's on Gitlab!" he
| protested. No, it's not; I'm staring at it on GitHub. Another
| claimed to have worked as a front-end engineer at Netflix. Great,
| I have friends there. Which team? "The front-end team". I
| understood that you were a front-end engineer, but which team?
| Again: "The front-end team!"
|
| In that instant I recalled the scene in _Coming to America_ where
| Eddie Murphy 's character is asked about his education and he
| confidently replies that he's attended "The University of the
| United States".
|
| https://getyarn.io/yarn-clip/4378beae-fdfb-4e6b-a7a9-667f365...
| surfingdino wrote:
| Last year I was reviewing about a dozen answers to the
| questions we were sending candidates to complete at home. In
| all cases those a*holes used ChatGPT to write answers and what
| did ChatGPT use? Original Python docs recombined with blog
| posts. I was able to verify this by copying passages from their
| answers and pasting them into Google. When I showed this to the
| hiring manager they had a serious conversation with the agency.
| It would have been hilarious if I did not know that some of the
| candidate were real people with good experience but too lazy to
| write simple code.
| esafak wrote:
| You can't assign homework any more. I was never into them
| anyway.
|
| One clumsy candidate accidentally revealed his cards by
| pasting the prompt he'd used in our chat window, like that
| paper whose introduction began "Certainly, here is a possible
| introduction to your topic." https://www.reddit.com/r/China/c
| omments/1beaqya/obvious_chat...
|
| Another was unable to explain why his code was structured the
| way it was. I asked a multipart question that required
| refactoring, knowing that these tools are not good at that,
| or enforcing a consistent style. His initial code was a self-
| contained class and the refactor introduced a function
| outside of the class that also should have been a method. I
| asked him why he did that and, of course, he froze.
| knallfrosch wrote:
| Did you tell them that AI was not allowed?
| vundercind wrote:
| This has long seemed like the obvious solution, to me, for
| publications that saw an untenable spike in submissions for the
| same reason.
|
| Just make 'em print and send a it in the mail. Instant reduction
| by 95+%, most of the best stuff still comes in.
| williamdclt wrote:
| > most of the best stuff still comes in
|
| I don't see why "the best stuff" would be more acceptant to
| printing than the rest. Actually I'd expect that the best
| candidates won't bend over backwards to submit their
| application, they have choice
| patrickmay wrote:
| I suspect it's not the printing but the postage that adds the
| most friction.
| vundercind wrote:
| If you can provide much-faster decisions, that's huge. You'd
| not turn off serious submissions that way. Many of these want
| to have an exclusive option at the story for _months_ because
| their workload is so high. Cut that to even 60 days and you'd
| make writers very happy.
| robbyiq999 wrote:
| still waiting for the LLM driven 3d avatar robot voice during my
| 10th hr zoom interview "can you eve scale bro? Can you even AWS
| firehose kafka kubernetes bro? Good! now show me how the minimum
| subsequence of this array in Ologn"
| dangus wrote:
| > ...in one case when the person moved on to the next interview,
| they couldn't answer questions about the task. "Not only have
| they wasted their time, but they wasted my time," says the
| recruiter. "It's really frustrating."
|
| I'm on the prospective employee's side here. If I had to do a
| complex task for every application I'd be driven mad. That's a
| waste of the applicant's time.
|
| Plus, the employee you should want to hire is the employee that
| can do tasks in the most creative low effort way. Why should I
| hire the employee who takes 8 hours to grind through a task when
| the employee who uses ChatGPT to bust it out in 1 hour gets the
| same correct output?
|
| Company recruiters have had the leg up on applicants for years
| with ATS systems. I'm glad the applicants have flipped the script
| and forced the recruiters to actually do work to find good
| candidates.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2024-05-05 23:02 UTC)