Earlier quoted context omitted.
This has a strong Kurt Vonnegut smell to it.
he's ded, you know it, right?
So it goes.
The computers rejecting job applications
181–190 of 261 posts
Re: The computers rejecting job applications
#182Re: The computers rejecting job applications
#183Re: The computers rejecting job applications
#184About 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?
It says you're going to be buying a new keyboard soon. The one you usually use has a worn-out space bar.
Re: The computers rejecting job applications
#185The 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…
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.
This is the biggest of big brain moves I've ever heard when it comes to gaming these types of stupid auto-filters. Definitely stealing this for future use.
Re: The computers rejecting job applications
#186Earlier 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.
If I were a hiring manager, and I liked everything else I saw, I'd get a good laugh out of this, which might propel them to the top of my "to be interviewed" pile.
Re: The computers rejecting job applications
#187Yes, those AI systems surely create garbage results right now, and worse, once they are trained perfectly, they will provide perfect cover to codify existing hiring biases:
1. Take existing employee base, hired through biased process.
2. Use resumes to train multi-million parameter machine learning model.
3. System will replicate biases, while the process is completely opaque to review by even the people who created it.
But then again, existing hiring practices are just as bad, e.g. hiring European engineers only if they graduated from Oxford, Cambridge, or the University of Bucharest: https://twitter.com/shaft/status/1355696154990628864
Or the still widespread practice in Switzerland to demand hand written job applications for executive positions, in order to have the applications evaluated by graphologists…
Re: The computers rejecting job applications
#188Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Personally, I've found it to be a good filter in terms of deciding where to interview at Emphasizing this point for others. This is the best way to approach it IMO. The company should work to impress you as much as you work to impress them.
Got a call from a recruiter that was looking for an oddly specific combination of skills. Me, so it’s Company X? He was flabbergasted. I gave 3 months notice. I was literally the only person in the world with that combination of skills. So I asked how much, went to bosses, I’ll stay on longer if you pay me that rate. Good money for a few months.
I suppose that speaks positively of the recruiter's ability to find the right person for the job!
Re: The computers rejecting job applications
#189Earlier quoted context omitted.
When I was involved in hiring, we received a steady stream of CVs and then had to decide if we want to interview and eventually hire or reject a candidate (typically we decided right after the interview or programming task). While there is a short time window in which multiple candidates might be evaluated, this approach is pretty close to the assumptions of the secretary problem.
I assume that's pretty typical. It's certainly my experience. We interview someone and have a call and it's usually either an enthusiastic yes. Or an OK I guess (or just no), in which case we keep looking. I'm not sure I can think of a case where we were "I guess they'll meet our needs if no one better comes along."
> I'm not sure I can think of a case where we were "I guess they'll meet our needs if no one better comes along."
You may not have been at an organization with a policy that unfilled positions after X time get removed. When you get close to the end of the time, there's pressure to hire someone, even if they're not great, because otherwise you'll lose the position.
On the other hand, I have had a case where someone was not hired for a position, and then later was asked to interview for a different position with the same hiring manager, and was hired for that.
Re: The computers rejecting job applications
#190Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
I think I would dispute the characterization of this as pseudo-scientific. The analogue balloon risk task is well validated, if in some ways poorly understood. That is, while standard economic risk models don't map onto it very well, it does correlate fairly substantially with real-world risky behaviors (so again, not economic risk where there is variance of outcomes, but more like the kind of risk taking where there are predictably bad outcomes, like trying heroin).
On the other hand, the use of these measures by big corps very well might be pseudo-scientific. I generally object to psychometrics being applied to prospective employees; it feels very dystopian to me. I also know that these measures require more subtle interpretation--and caution--than you're likely to get from anyone in HR, especially when we are talking about making inferences about individuals rather than groups of individuals.