451–460 of 463 posts
> I fail 65% of the time. Same exact resume, different luck. As someone who’s run hiring pipelines for technical roles in the past few years, that’s actually a fantastic number. I objectively hate saying that, but it’s true. 35% chance of elevating a technical individual to the next stage with no effort? I’ve seen as many as 100+ applicants an hour even when including a domain specific screener question. That’s 35 “s…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm not going to do any of those 3 things for a would-be employer.
They don't seem like unreasonable things to me so I guess it also helps filter out unreasonable people!
If someone is going to ask me to do leetcode problems it means they haven't done their research on me. Why would I want to work for them if they won't spend the time to do this? Digging into my publicly available background should be enough to tell them I am or am not of the caliber they're looking for in terms of hands on keyboard development.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Everything is correlated to everything [1]. Which means there's a good chance this is somehow correlated in one way or another to race/gender/other protected classes in the US, just by the math of everything being correlated to everything. Which means this is one good lawsuit away from being illegal in the US as well. It doesn't even necessarily have to "win", just do well enough in court to scare away anyone else fr…
>Which means there's a good chance this is somehow correlated in one way or another to race/gender/other protected classes in the US, just by the math of everything being correlated to everything. >Which means this is one good lawsuit away from being illegal in the US as well. Uhh.. what? No that doesn't follow at all. Screening resumes in a way that correlates to race, gender, etc. is not illegal. This is a fundamen…
How likely is an LLM to have different outcomes for Tyrone vs Jeff?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> I already said the coin is known to be fair. The coin can be assumed to be fair before the flips , but after the flips we have no mathematical reason to believe that the coin is fair, as our results heavily suggest that it quite simply isn’t fair. However, for the purposes of discussion, assuming an ideal coin, the probability of 500 same flips in a row is so statistically unlikely that fairness of the flipping pro…
Bro just assume there's been a billion flips right before my example indicating it's close to perfectly fair, the only point of my comment was to illustrate that previous flips don't influence future flips. Pretend I said 5 instead of 500 if it makes you feel better.
I agree: the events are independent in probability, which was never under debate, and is a separate matter to whether or not the coin is fair.
As for your edit:
> Pretend I said 5 instead of 500 if it makes you feel better.
At this point, wouldn’t you say that’s a bridge too far? It’s uncharitable to ask of your interlocutor as that changes the entire context and implications of what you originally said upthread.
Asking me to just pretend that you made a different argument than you originally made, when the mathematical implications of your original argument are the context under question, is literally moving the goalposts.
If you had said it was 5 flips in a row instead of 500 flips, then I wouldn’t have said what I said, because there’s a difference so wide between the two statements in their degree of probability as to be different arguments entirely. You didn’t say that though, and so I don’t know what you’re trying to say now.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
They don't seem like unreasonable things to me so I guess it also helps filter out unreasonable people!
Number 2 is so unusual I would immediately flag the company as a scam. How is asking for money a reasonable approach? There are alternative ways, easier too depending on country, and all you'd be doing is selecting for desperation while also spreading bad rumors from all the people who nope out when they see such malpractice.
What are the alternatives if you are getting over 100 applicants an hour? If you have genuine ideas I'm curious.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Bro just assume there's been a billion flips right before my example indicating it's close to perfectly fair, the only point of my comment was to illustrate that previous flips don't influence future flips. Pretend I said 5 instead of 500 if it makes you feel better.
> Bro just assume there's been a billion flips right before my example indicating it's close to perfectly fair, the only point of my comment was to illustrate that previous flips don't influence future flips. I agree: the events are independent in probability, which was never under debate, and is a separate matter to whether or not the coin is fair. As for your edit: > Pretend I said 5 instead of 500 if it makes you…
I think what's more worrying to me (if other systems work like this ATS) is that it seems to judge based on a bunch of factors that will probably disqualify a ton of decent to good participants. For example, 65 points are given for a mix of personal projects and open source contributions. Which is great if your one and only interest is in tech, and you don't have a family, dependents or a second/third job. If you hav…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Bro just assume there's been a billion flips right before my example indicating it's close to perfectly fair, the only point of my comment was to illustrate that previous flips don't influence future flips. I agree: the events are independent in probability, which was never under debate, and is a separate matter to whether or not the coin is fair. As for your edit: > Pretend I said 5 instead of 500 if it makes you…
I'm saying the thing you just declared "never under debate". The only one having a debate here is you. The only point I was making was never under debate. You reading too deeply into it and getting hung up on irrelevant details of what I said is entirely tangential, I'm neither agreeing nor disagreeing, honestly I haven't even really bothered reading your comments because you're just off on your own little tirade and…
The thing that isn’t under debate (that the flips are independent) is the thing which we both agree upon, and I believed no declaration was previously necessary because it is beside the point and obvious, and it also has no bearing on anything else you claimed. It doesn’t support your argument that the coin, the flipping mechanism, and output of the process as a whole can be assumed to be fair after 500 same flips.
The context of the original discussion is the question of bias in hiring, and whether AI introduces unknown or unpredictable bias. If we used a coin flip instead of AI in hiring decisions, and that coin had the property of resulting in 500 heads in a row, it would be fair to re-examine our test setup as well as the coin in the context of using it to make hiring decisions, because that result is not consistent with our prior belief that the coin is fair.
Due to disparate impact, the result of using such a coin in hiring decisions, even if said coin itself in isolation were measured to be fair, would still result in an unfair result as part of a larger decision-making process, which was the point I was getting at.
The purpose of a system is what it does. If a coin flipping system, or an AI, used for hiring or any other decision-making results in such an astronomically improbable result as 500 heads in a row would imply, it is not fit for purpose.
> I intentionally chose a really high number to make my point, it's not meant to be realistic it's meant to make a point.
Choosing a high number undercuts your argument or is tangential to the flip events being probabilistically independent, so that’s why I commented in the first place, in order to draw out your point, because what was meant by what you stated originally was unclear to me.
> I'm neither agreeing nor disagreeing, honestly I haven't even really bothered reading your comments because you're just off on your own little tirade and I have no interest in it.
Framing our discussion in such terms is strange to me. I thought your coin flip example was interesting as a metaphor in the context of a potentially unfair AI used for hiring decisions, and I genuinely thought you were earnestly discussing the topic, and I still do, though it’s hard to read your admission of not reading my comments as anything but an explicit admission of not arguing in good faith.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don't see why its a problem to use LLMs to assist with legal work if someone else uses it in a way that exposes them to lawsuits. That's like saying you shouldn't using a ledger to do accounting just because some people cook the books.
Because using it to do shoddy work that harms people is the basis for the suit. If you're using it for the lawyering, too, how do you know that it won't do shoddy work in writing the lawsuit - shoddy work that could hurt the client?
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…
My favorite recent example was submitting a resume for a job that was almost a word-for-word description of my current title and job at a similarly sized company. Within 24 hours, I got the rejection, and several days later, a recruiter reached out to let me know that my profile looked like a great match for the role and wanted to schedule an intro call.