Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

HackerRank open sourced its ATS. My resume scored 90/100. Oh wait 74. No – 88

danunparsed.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

301–310 of 463 posts

Re: HackerRank open sourced its ATS. My resume scored 90/100. Oh wait 74. No – 88

#301

Post by jdiff »

StilesCrisis wrote: post #289
simiones wrote: post #285

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In almost all forms of math, the value n/0 is undefined. It's definitely not infinity, for two reasons - depending on the value of n, it can be negative; and neither info nor -inf are numbers, so they can't be the result of an equation (unless you look at transfinite equations). What you can do in math is talk about the limit of a series of fractions as the denominator approaches 0, and that's where you get some rela…

I explicitly didn't say "infinity or negative infinity" because I didn't think that level of pedantry would be needed here on HN. I guess I was wrong.

It's not positive or negative infinity. It is simply undefined. Math has many conventions, and you can define your own convention that it does equal some flavor of infinity, but that is only a convention, and not a universal one.

Re: HackerRank open sourced its ATS. My resume scored 90/100. Oh wait 74. No – 88

#302

Post by bee_rider »

agnosticmantis wrote: post #97
ryukoposting wrote: post #12

At this point we might as well adopt that joke where you blindly throw away half the resumes because you don't want to hire unlucky people.

A person's total luck is constant over a lifetime. The remaining half of the candidates already spent some of their luck in this selection, so they'll be on average less lucky than the discarded half.

But, however you structure the selection process the people who get picked are the ones who’ve expended some luck (like, if you throw away half the resumes, but then pick the resumes out of the trashcan, the ones you plucked out are still the lucky ones).

I see two possible solutions.

1) Most people won’t be using up most of their luck on this one thing. I mean they’ve got their whole lifetime worth of luck, so you just need to make sure to pick people who still have plenty left. In other words, ageism and/or picking people who’ve never accomplished much are the solutions!

2) We assume working for the company is a lucky outcome. If you make the company a really unpleasant place to work, people will have to use their luck to dodge it. However, luck can only be evaluated against other possible outcomes. The plan, then, should be to set up a competitor (possibly a front) that is a really nice place to work. They’ll act as the “lucky outcome expenditure dump.”

Re: HackerRank open sourced its ATS. My resume scored 90/100. Oh wait 74. No – 88

#303

Post by AbsurdCensor »

citrin_ru wrote: post #211
ryukoposting wrote: post #12

At this point we might as well adopt that joke where you blindly throw away half the resumes because you don't want to hire unlucky people.

May be LLM resume screening is a symptom of a bigger problem - with tens of candidates per vacancy employers can screen resume badly and even throw half of the resumes away and still hire someone qualified.

That's really what it is, or at least what I've noticed.

Any position you have these days is inundated with applications. Most don't meet the qualifications (because in a lot of places say in the US you must apply to jobs to keep with benefits, regardless of what you are applying for), and for the remaining, you'll find that there will always be some that are all similarly qualified. Who do you hire for one position? It sometimes just comes down to luck.

AI doing the job of filtering I can't imagine making the process easier, and more applications are just going to get tossed because of it.

Re: HackerRank open sourced its ATS. My resume scored 90/100. Oh wait 74. No – 88

#304

Post by ceejayoz »

kailpa1 wrote: post #99

From `resume_evaluation_system_message.jinja` > *SCORES MUST NEVER DEPEND ON THE FOLLOWING FACTORS:* > - College, university, or educational institution name > - CGPA, GPA, or academic grades I don't understand why they would omit these factors from the evaluation.

https://qz.com/1427621/companies-are-on-the-hook-if-their-hi...

> But it didn’t. After the company trained the algorithm on 10 years of its own hiring data, the algorithm reportedly became biased against female applicants. The word “women,” like in women’s sports, would cause the algorithm to specifically rank applicants lower. After Amazon engineers attempted to fix that problem, the algorithm still wasn’t up to snuff and the project was ended.

And in another org:

> After an audit of the algorithm, the resume screening company found that the algorithm found two factors to be most indicative of job performance: their name was Jared, and whether they played high school lacrosse. Girouard’s client did not use the tool.

https://www.npr.org/2024/04/11/1243713272/resume-bias-study-...

> Their working paper, published this month and titled "A Discrimination Report Card," found that the typical employer called back the presumably white applicants around 9% more than Black ones. That number rose to roughly 24% for the worst offenders.

It'll discriminate by proxy, basically.

Re: HackerRank open sourced its ATS. My resume scored 90/100. Oh wait 74. No – 88

#305

Post by Xirdus »

LinXitoW wrote: post #127
sevenzero wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

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…

> 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.

Re: HackerRank open sourced its ATS. My resume scored 90/100. Oh wait 74. No – 88

#306

Post by fernandopj »

joshmn wrote: post #293

I ran the ATS myself and had a similarly quirky experience. I was in the 70s because it couldn't find my GitHub profile, and then it didn't like some of the popular Ruby libraries I'm the author of. After a few runs it picked things up appropriately. I always got dinged on formal education though. This stuff is gross.

Similar to my experience. Put me around 65 in some runs, because it didn't like I don't have contributions to OSS.

Also, it doesn't pick up certifications or awards. I tried some PRs people are suggesting with enhancements (https://github.com/Zem-0/hiring-agent), it helps, but overall their ATS is hugely biased towards people with large GitHub contributions to OSS.

Re: HackerRank open sourced its ATS. My resume scored 90/100. Oh wait 74. No – 88

#308

Post by fernandopj »

robertlagrant wrote: post #188

I tried this with my CV, and it somehow scored me bonus points for GSoC! BONUS POINTS: 5.0 ------------------------------ Google Summer of Code (GSoC) participation: +5 Even though I've never done this, and don't claim to have done it in my CV.

Happened to me as well. It is a known hallucination https://github.com/interviewstreet/hiring-agent/issues/240

Re: HackerRank open sourced its ATS. My resume scored 90/100. Oh wait 74. No – 88

#309

Post by District5524 »

dathinab wrote: post #247

And this + the tendency for AI to "prefer" AI produced code + some other AI biased is why *this is most likely highly illegal to use in the EU due to violating anti discrimination laws in multiple ways. To be clear: - randomly filtering "too many" resumes is pretty much allowed (I think) - but must be actual random independent of the resume (and can be in multiple layers, i.e. random filter > pre-select > random filt…

I'm not sure this is very easy to show this is a breach of non-discrimination requirements, like under Council Directive 2000/78/EC for employment.

Due to acting like an irrational gambling machine, I agree it can have unwanted indirect discrimination effect in general. But it will probably not differentiate "on the grounds of religion or belief, disability, age or sexual orientation". It is possible, but that would take a lot of work for the lawyers to prove to the court.

I believe the more interesting part is that the EU AI Act (still not in force in this regard until 2 December 2027). This will be clearly a high-risk AI system: "AI systems intended to be used for the recruitment or selection of natural persons, in particular to place targeted job advertisements, to analyse and filter job applications, and to evaluate candidates".

Which does not mean prohibited, but it could later turn out that LLMs will be excluded from being used in high-risk AI use cases (falling under article 6 with no exemptions).

Considering that none of the standards are published yet, I have absolultely no idea how they will ensure compliance with the following parts of Article 10 when using LLMs for such tasks: "(f) examination in view of possible biases that are likely to affect the health and safety of persons, have a negative impact on fundamental rights or lead to discrimination prohibited under Union law, especially where data outputs influence inputs for future operations; (g) appropriate measures to detect, prevent and mitigate possible biases identified according to point (f)"

I don't think that's technically possible to do so with LLMs in general at the moment, even with the full cooperation of the model providers. Maybe you can do some meaningful audits for smaller models. But the EU AI Act may end up excluding all the generic "using-LLM-but-not-entirely-sure-why" vibe coded approaches from high-risk use cases (in Annex III). Which would make sense.

https://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/reg/2024/1689/oj/eng

Post reply on HN