The computers rejecting job applications • Hacker News Board

Re: The computers rejecting job applications

#171

Post by Jochim » Mon, Feb 08, 2021, 7:48 PM UTC

aboringusername wrote: post #119

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…

In regards to society computers are still a relatively new invention. The behaviour we're seeing at the moment will either be regulated away or the affected populations will end up as neo-serfs, subjects to decision making systems they are allowed no control over. The EU is at the forefront of the fight against this: people can demand an explanation of algorithmic decision making and GDPR prevents organisations from holding your data without consent.

Computers are powerful tools and can be put to both constructive and destructive purposes. I'm hopeful that at least some societies will figure out sensible limitations on what use they can be put to.

Re: The computers rejecting job applications

#172

Post by thatguy0900 » Mon, Feb 08, 2021, 8:15 PM UTC

BerislavLopac wrote: post #145

BerislavLopac wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I've read once of a company who fired everyone who had below average performance score.

Oh yes, and I know of at least one country that is considering setting the minimum salary as a percentage of the average salary...

Just think, in only a couple of years everyone will be a millionaire

Re: The computers rejecting job applications

#173

Post by crispyambulance » Mon, Feb 08, 2021, 8:48 PM UTC

fallingknife wrote: post #160

crispyambulance wrote: post #57

Doing an online application to initiate contact with a potential employer is already a strike against the applicant. The whole point of these systems is to whittle down the pool of candidates down to single digits. Of course each candidate is going to "perfectly match" the stated faux-objective criteria because that's what the users of these systems think they want. Whether or not that's what they need is another que…

Google did a study on what elements of the hiring process correlated with good performance and found that references we're almost useless.

Google is Google. They hire _VAST_ numbers of people straight out of college. It's practically a pipeline for them. I am not saying that neglecting referrals from professional contacts doesn't work for Google, but rather that it's commonplace and "good enough" for other places.

Moreover, from the point of view of an individual rather than the employer's performance metrics, it's generally better to make a human connection if you're just talking about the chances of getting hired.

Re: The computers rejecting job applications

#174

Post by stuaxo » Mon, Feb 08, 2021, 9:29 PM UTC

myself248 wrote: post #137

patrickthebold wrote: post #89

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 would title it "Growth opportunities I look forward to exploring", and then yes, absolutely.

This must be an American thing, if someone wrote that on a CV in the UK, this sort of text would probably put people off.

Re: The computers rejecting job applications

#175

Post by stuaxo » Mon, Feb 08, 2021, 9:32 PM UTC

curiousllama wrote: post #40

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…

Based on how these things go, it's almost a certainly that this will be found to be discriminating in some way that is unethical/illegal within the next few years.

Re: The computers rejecting job applications

#176

Post by HarryHirsch » Mon, Feb 08, 2021, 9:34 PM UTC

jonnycomputer wrote: post #152

finolex1 wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The pymetrics test mentioned in the article involves among other things, clicking on a balloon till it pops and pressing the keyboard as many times as possible in a minute. As much as people love to hate on leetcode-style interview programming questions, they are at least remotely related to performance on the job. Personally, I've found it to be a good filter in terms of deciding where to interview at. Companies tha…

that's the balloon task, it measures willingness to take risks in contexts of ambiguity (the chance of it popping is not known). the button press task is probably used to normalize response time data, since some of the between person differences in average response time is due to (probably uninteresting) differences in motor-control of the neuromuscular system. were there any other tasks like ones that asked you to i…

The "willingness to take risks" is probably also "willingness to take crap" by an unemployed or underemployed person. A gainfully employed person may move on when the pseudoscientific video games come up during the screening interview. It is a risk to go work for such companies.

Re: The computers rejecting job applications

#177

Post by hinkley » Mon, Feb 08, 2021, 9:35 PM UTC

stuaxo wrote: post #174

myself248 wrote: post #137

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I would title it "Growth opportunities I look forward to exploring", and then yes, absolutely.

This must be an American thing, if someone wrote that on a CV in the UK, this sort of text would probably put people off.

The 'American thing' is putting keywords in white text on a white background.

This is just normal stuff.

I get people hitting me up on Linked In for tech that I outgrew 10 years ago. I can either take them off entirely (making me look very 1 dimensional) or counterbalance that with things I'd love for someone to pay me to learn.

I haven't made any decisions so far so the status continues to remain quo.

Re: The computers rejecting job applications

#178

Post by site-packages1 » Mon, Feb 08, 2021, 9:37 PM UTC

stuaxo wrote: post #174

myself248 wrote: post #137

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I would title it "Growth opportunities I look forward to exploring", and then yes, absolutely.

This must be an American thing, if someone wrote that on a CV in the UK, this sort of text would probably put people off.

I think the joke is that the automated scanners weeding out resumes as in the article posted look for keywords like "React" or "Machine Learning" but without context, so when they see "Machine Learning" on a CV, they are more inclined to accept it, not knowing the context. As an interviewer you can simply play dumb on that aspect.

Re: The computers rejecting job applications

#179

Post by site-packages1 » Mon, Feb 08, 2021, 9:41 PM UTC

nicbou wrote: post #112

throwaway0a5e wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Cordless drill with a small paddle bit held the right distance from the space bar would have aced that test. Of course there's software tricks you could have used as well.

Or a software input device

Or, presumably, holding the spacebar down and letting the repeat function do its thing

Re: The computers rejecting job applications

#180

Post by DebtDeflation » Mon, Feb 08, 2021, 9:41 PM UTC

NotPavlovsDog wrote: post #128

Clubber wrote: post #116

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>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…

It doesn't even have to be conscious. Implementing a meaningless test still provides a valid test as far as candidate compliance and desire to fit in are concerned. 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 replicabi…

>"smart people get frustrated quickly. I've learned through the years to select those that are agreeable"

That might make sense if you're hiring people to dig holes in the ground but seems absurd to use as a filter for any sort of skilled professional position.