121–130 of 261 posts
The next logical step would be to train an adversarial AI against the hiring AI. You'd have the system generate your resume and application to maximize your chances. Then the hiring AI would need to be re-trained to account for this. And so on. In the far future, this feedback loop creates an economy where every job application is total gibberish. No human can possibly explain why their resume is a recipe for carne a…
This has a strong Kurt Vonnegut smell to it.
Computers decide if you get a job (and access to a resource called "money", pretty important for living). Computers decide if your Google accounts gets deleted, without warning. Computers decide if you can get credit, or open a bank, or participate in society. And there is 0, yup, 0 accountability. Computer doesn't like you? Tough shit, get fucked, nothing you can do. If you don't have an internet connection, you're…
Also, nobody needs a Google account.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I have a section on my resume called: 'Technologies I'm Unfamiliar With' Underneath is a Laundry list of today's sexiest technologies. It's not quite as advanced as your suggestion, but it's pretty effective. It's also a good icebreaker when you have the in person interview.
I've always viewed staying up with the latest tools, technologies, and practices as part of my job. I've also found that the people who tend to not do this or display a similar sentiment you touched on with your comment, it's because you have carved out a large enough amount of success or niche with what you are working with. Am I reading into this too far?
About a year and half ago I was applying for a software engineering internship at Goldman Sachs and they made me take a Pymetrics test. One of the tasks was to press the spacebar as many times as possible in 30 seconds. I didn't do the task and withdrew my application.
I just timed myself. 224 times. I wonder what that says about me?
The next logical step would be to train an adversarial AI against the hiring AI. You'd have the system generate your resume and application to maximize your chances. Then the hiring AI would need to be re-trained to account for this. And so on. In the far future, this feedback loop creates an economy where every job application is total gibberish. No human can possibly explain why their resume is a recipe for carne a…
Yeap. There then ought to be a whole cottage industry of gaming AI applications and AI hiring. So, we're basically voluntarily letting the machines take over and replace human jobs, nuance, and critical thinking? Oh and then the next logical progressions are AI performance reviews and AI management. Within a decade, your AI boss will slinging around a coffee cup and saying "yeah, I'm gonna need you to come in on Sund…
I was part of a very in-depth evaluations of both Pymetrics & HireVue for a large company recently (2 different evals, among others). Some interesting things we observed: (1) It was not clear to us, with any level of certainty, whether either tool did anything more useful than filter out people who don't want to take the test / don't trust "AI". (2) It was not clear to us, with any level of certainty, whether (1) was…
How do you find good psych people? Showing my bias but it’s a genuine question. I remember in school all the psych and social psych folks being total jackoffs in blowoff classes. How do you find people you can take seriously? Who don’t just quote psychology today and act like it’s insight? Like I know the field is professional and has skilled professionals - but how do you find them?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If you never knew it happened, how do you... know it happened? I can't conclusively say one way or the other. I have been a hiring manager at a F500 tech company and have never seen direct evidence of any automatic filtering or rejections. Anyone speaking with complete confidence in either direction needs to bring actual evidence...
As in, my managers always talked about their piles being “presorted by HR” which was just code for a computer did it. I never thought some well paid HR person was actually sorting through those, but maybe I guess. There’s no evidence to bring? Like, in the case of bunch of people bringing personal anecdotes you can still create a sense of truth without evidence Christ.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This. People think stupid tests and ineffective recruitment stand for incompetence. They may actually signify a well-tuned process to identify compliant, mediocre individuals that don't produce results, stand out, nor are self-motivated, but rather aim to please the boss, without question, and to "fit in". As an engineer, you want to increase your value contribution to the org and the org should see you the same way.…
>They may actually signify a well-tuned process to identify compliant, mediocre individuals that don't produce results, stand out, nor are self-motivated, but rather aim to please the boss, without question, and to "fit in". You might be giving them too much credit. I suspect that may have been the original intent of the question, but was mindlessly aped after appearing in an article by countless hiring managers and…
Merit-driven applicant: This test is not backed by science, does not measure anything related to performance relevant to the job and is arbitrary. Oh, and did you check how do the developers of the test address the fundamental problem of lack of replicability and reproducibility in psychology?
Hiring (if they can actually articulate and self-reflect, a rare occurrence): So you think you're smarter than us?
Subservient applicant: I gave this test 110%, thank you for this opportunity! I look forward to learn more about how I can contribute to the continued success of [org name]!
Speaking to a mediocre manager with a very stable career, tt was a revelation for me to hear them say "smart people get frustrated quickly. I've learned through the years to select those that are agreeable". Value and value creation were not on that managers radar.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
How do you find good psych people? Showing my bias but it’s a genuine question. I remember in school all the psych and social psych folks being total jackoffs in blowoff classes. How do you find people you can take seriously? Who don’t just quote psychology today and act like it’s insight? Like I know the field is professional and has skilled professionals - but how do you find them?
Well, first you put out a job ad. Then because the psych people are so numerous, you'll be inundated with resumes. Since you don't know what to really look for, you decide that an AI from some company will help out with that. So you use an AI to hire people to get rid of the AI, except in the case where you hire people to get rid of the AI, because you don't know how to hire those people. ;)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The current large tech company I work for had a recruiter posting messages on LinkedIn like “we’re hiring like crazy in for people with !” I had already applied on their careers site and got no response. Messaged this recruiter and got no response. Applied again to a similar position maybe 2 months later, got a response, got an interview, and now I’m working there. Guess my point is there’s clearly a lot of randomnes…
Any application process is mostly luck after you meet a certain threshold IMO.
Therefore, they're mostly luck.