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

The computers rejecting job applications

bbc.co.uk

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

201–210 of 261 posts

Re: The computers rejecting job applications

#201

Post by notahacker »

ballenf wrote: post #197
kstrauser wrote: post #107

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It also neglects that you'll always have a bottom 10%, even if those people are absolutely amazing: hire 10 Harvard PhDs and one of them will be at the bottom. I can't believe stack ranking ever caught on.

If the ranking system is accurate (that's a huge "if"), then it doesn't really matter what the bottom x% look like on paper. The question is whether it's ever possible to devise an accurate measure of value quantitatively. Even if your job is press the red button, a person with low numbers might be such an inspiration to the team that everyone else works 15% faster, more than making up for their shortcoming. And you…

And even if the evaluations are perfectly accurate and retained staff are equally or more motivated, it's still quite possible that interviews, training and slow productivity ramp up for replacements results in more of a productivity hit than retaining relatively unproductive staff.

Re: The computers rejecting job applications

#202

Post by mandelbrotwurst »

DebtDeflation wrote: post #180
NotPavlovsDog wrote: post #128

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

The idea here is that the hiring manager is likely to care about things other than raw productivity of their direct reports, such as how easy they are to manage.

Re: The computers rejecting job applications

#203

Post by 13of40 »

TurkishPoptart wrote: post #191
SharpeDidntFoul wrote: post #159

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I paid someone $250 to get my resume past ATS systems, it worked.

Care to share the service/company?

Reminds me of that old trick: Pay me $100 and I'll cast a spell to get you accepted to university. Your money back if it doesn't work.

Re: The computers rejecting job applications

#204

Post by _carbyau_ »

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…

A different take on your last paragraph:

Ignorance can be fixed relatively easily compared to poor personality traits.

I think somewhere here is a conflation between "ignorance" and "intelligence".

First priority is to get someone who doesn't stir up unnecessary shit.

Second priority, get someone smart.

Third priority, get someone who already knows the tech.

Re: The computers rejecting job applications

#205

Post by curryst »

crispyambulance wrote: post #173
fallingknife wrote: post #160

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 conne…

I don't see what good references are since the applicant gets to choose them. How many people legitimately can't find a single person from a previous job to list as a reference? Or find a person that can convincingly pretend to be a reference.

It would be different if you could randomly call 3 people they worked with at their last company, but I don't think anyone does that.

Re: The computers rejecting job applications

#206

Post by uncomputation »

dcolkitt wrote: post #36

The 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…

Building on this, what are the chances this just leads to a cyberpunk underground economy of interview-passing images/videos?

Re: The computers rejecting job applications

#207

Post by luma »

SharpeDidntFoul wrote: post #159
jakub_g wrote: post #49

FWIW (at least in tech industry), apparently the automated filtering systems are a myth spread by companies who make money on the promise to optimize your resume to get past the filter. https://twitter.com/GergelyOrosz/status/1292909844886945792 (The OP of the tweet was an engineering manager in several big tech companies, wrote The Software Engineer’s Guidebook last year, and talked with many recruiters in the proce…

I paid someone $250 to get my resume past ATS systems, it worked.

And what would have happened if you hadn't?

Re: The computers rejecting job applications

#209

Post by hnburnsy »

patrickthebold wrote: post #89
dcolkitt wrote: post #36

The 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.

Brilliant, take a page from dark patterns and make the font white on white or light light gray.

Re: The computers rejecting job applications

#210

Post by xyzelement »

SharpeDidntFoul wrote: post #158
dcolkitt wrote: post #36

The 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 kind of rambled on about this in another comment on this thread, but I paid someone $250 to optimize my resume with key words to appease AI. It worked. I got automated replies to schedule phone screenings from jobs that had rejected my old resume. It's already happening.

I am curious what they did - can you share high level details? EG: if you're a developer, did they add more technologies, or what was the type of thing?
Post reply on HN