341–350 of 463 posts
> 35 points for open source contributions > 30 for personal projects These are insane weights for scoring a software engineer's resume.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
For C: I'm not sure how EU laws work, but ethics says that someone who needs a job cannot give consent since the possibility of a job if they give consent could be a bribe. See a lawyer for how it works in your country.
also not fully sure, but AFIK there are limits to how far you can wave this right, in context of things like TOS, simple opt-in fields on forms etc. Like YT would have loved to make you opt out of it (and probably has it in their TOS) but there where multiple cases of courts forcing them to handle it properly in the past as far as I remember. My _guess_ is that at least if you don't sign a proper contract you can alw…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Great until someone realises you’ve filtered out minority groups from the application process (most developers are men so maybe the LLM decided they’re the best fit, but you’ll never know exactly why it screwed your over) and you suddenly have an expensive lawsuit
LLMs are DEI-aware, as over past few years, their vendors all had various high profile news stories with their models and their default biases, so it's more likely they'll heavily discriminate in favor of minority candidates, not against them. Still, in both cases it would indicate whoever is operating the system is doing a really, really lazy job. It's really not hard to test and supervise LLMs on tasks where they g…
This isn't to diminish the whispernet. Rather, it shows just how many important signals cannot be quantized.
An alarming number of people don't understand that LLMs work via purely stochastic processes, so I'm happy to see in-depth pieces like this. I'm looking for a job and maybe this is why it's so hard to get a callback these days: resumes are just dumped in some LLM black hole and no one really knows how it works. The author says: > temperature 0.1 — low, supposedly nudging the model toward deterministic outputs This is…
its a bad idea in general to use non-1.0 temperature. there is a reason labs are strongly recommending using 1.0. using low temperature is more deterministic, but the cost is the model becomes "dumber"
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I wonder if you could solve this for programming specifically as follows: 1. Give them some easy leetcode questions. Nothing that a competent programmer would have any problem with. 2. If they pass, ask for a deposit of like $20. Shouldn't be an issue for people who are actually serious. 3. Do more simple leetcode questions but this time on zoom so you can tell if they are using AI. If they pass that they get the dep…
I'm not going to do any of those 3 things for a would-be employer.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
“I'm a little confused, is this an ATS system that anyone actually uses?” You read my mind. If the answer is “no”, then we can ignore this.
For one, if you go on to Hacker Rank's "Screen" page, they mention the product is used by Stripe/AirBnB/LinkedIn/Atlassian/IBM etc etc. I imagine that there's plenty more companies using it too. But I'd also assume that their competitors are doing something similar so I don't think we as an industry can just ignore that it's happening.
That seems to be a different type of product.
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…
Even at 2 December 2027 it might be intentionally not enforced at all due to that for a while, through I think the goal is currently to amend it until then.
> that LLMs will be excluded from being used in high-risk AI use cases
no, it won't I can guarantee you this. At best they will get additional restrictions over time, as things go wrong. Anyone who could make this happen has way too much interest to not make it happen. (Most/All? EU country legal systems are overloaded to a point of not working correctly anymore, and have been before AI generated law suites and other AI nonsense started. I won't go into detail but many believe AI assistance (for certain tasks, always with a human doing any final decisions) is the only way to get out of this mess).
> standards are published yet
or exist,
like seriously this isn't a case of there being non public WIP standards which will pin all the nitty bitty details down, but cases of state agencies (and in last instance judges) having to decide if a specific standard (or implementation) is sufficient or not.
but also to some degree it shouldn't be tightly coupled to tech standards as there are often many ways to implement the things the law requires and accepting only one is undesirable (and likely wouldn't legally hold up). But having tech standards which are a "guaranteed to be enough if you comply with" (but not the only valid way) would have been preferable, bringing us to the next point
> have absolutely no idea how they will ensure compliance
nor do they know, the original non big corpo hijacked version had exceptions for most companies affected now. So it would only have affected a handful of huge companies, which have many of the things required already in place, in some form or another. Most likely this would have played out as this companies presenting how their measurements are "sufficient" and the agencies then evaluating it and potentially requiring some changes, going back and force over a longer duration leading to documented cases of rough technical standards about "what is sufficient" they then can pass to other organizations in the future. But now the law affects not just a handful of companies but like thousands, if not tens of thousands. Many not stuffed in a way where such a process could work, or even do the necessary documentation to show "compliance"...
So from a practicability POV, if enforced starting 2027, it currently excludes close to _any_ (meaningful) use of AI, down to a trivial linear regression or similar. Including any "old school ML/AI" any Bank uses for risk assessment.
Banking stopping running in December and there not being any (meaningfull) AI startups or adoption at all is not something anyone (in power in any state organ) wants to see, so guess how much it will be enforced ;)
And as mentioned the chance of AI as technology being excluded "in general" is close to none. Maybe specific usages could be excluded (and/or are already excluded) but thats it.
Oh and as a bonus a malicious reading of f+g remove any proper privacy protections for any AI usage in high risk context, where it is often most relevant... (a more sane reading allow it, with ... tricks).