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

AI Self-preferencing in Algorithmic Hiring: Empirical Evidence and Insights

arxiv.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 190 posts

Re: AI Self-preferencing in Algorithmic Hiring: Empirical Evidence and Insights

#31

Post by ben_w »

amelius wrote: post #19
charliebwrites wrote: post #15

Anecdata, sample size of one: When I was looking for my next role after being laid off, I didn’t get much of a response with my human handmade resume despite my experience Just for kicks, I asked ChatGPT to “Analyze my resume and give it a score for what percentage it was in” then I asked it to revise it to make it score as high as possible I still tweaked and fact checked it but after I started sending that out, I g…

I suppose the HR folks gave you a "+1 knows how to use AI".

Some will, others openly say on the job ad they will fail you for using AI.

Re: AI Self-preferencing in Algorithmic Hiring: Empirical Evidence and Insights

#32

Post by stingraycharles »

zipy124 wrote: post #11
nottorp wrote: post #4

Easy then. Apply N times, each time with a resume generated by a different LLM. No human is going to notice anyway. Or add a N+1 resume written by yourself in which you describe your strategy, just in case.

Do you really believe no human is going to read your resume at some point in the process and notice the classic AI tells? Further de-duplication is rather easy, and will likely see you black-listed by competant organisations.

“Do you really believe no human is going to read your resume at some point in the process and notice the classic AI tells?”

Even here on HN many people don’t recognize AI tells that are obvious. Pretty much 100% of all articles posted on HN have been AI generated for months and months already and people don’t seem to care.

I have very little faith in humanity being able to deal with the chaos that LLMs are going to unleash on society.

Heck, most resumes are probably skimmed at best already.

Re: AI Self-preferencing in Algorithmic Hiring: Empirical Evidence and Insights

#33

Post by Esophagus4 »

cl0ckt0wer wrote: post #13
zipy124 wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Do you really believe no human is going to read your resume at some point in the process and notice the classic AI tells? Further de-duplication is rather easy, and will likely see you black-listed by competant organisations.

The only resumes that make it past the ai to a human are ai generated

When I’m hiring, a human recruiter (or the hiring manager) reads most resumes.

For us, there is some sorting by basic keyword analysis and we start near the top, but there is no proverbial black box that rejects candidates outright.

If candidates are ignored by humans, it’s not because AI rejected them, it’s because we are starting with candidates earlier in the list and might not make it to applicant 537.

Re: AI Self-preferencing in Algorithmic Hiring: Empirical Evidence and Insights

#35

Post by bendergarcia »

bendergarcia wrote: post #30

We are without our consent introducing a party in between people. The models become the arbiters of who does and does not get a job. It feels problematic.

And I feel the common response of: well just use the model that’s available. Ai is and will probably always be resource constrained and profit driven, that means we will eventually see a world where poor people have worse resumes than rich people and there really won’t be any way around it because the man in the middle has the final say

Re: AI Self-preferencing in Algorithmic Hiring: Empirical Evidence and Insights

#37

Post by sneak »

bendergarcia wrote: post #30

We are without our consent introducing a party in between people. The models become the arbiters of who does and does not get a job. It feels problematic.

We already did that when we all created LinkedIn accounts.

Re: AI Self-preferencing in Algorithmic Hiring: Empirical Evidence and Insights

#38

Post by bendergarcia »

sb057 wrote: post #21

Well yeah, LLMs generate resumes (and other text) that they judge as superior to alternative plausible texts. Why would that judgement change just because a different instance hasn't seen it before? To anthropomorphize it, it's like having a hiring manager write a resume, get amnesia, and then have to judge it among other resumes.

I wouldn’t put it past these tech companies to prefer ai outputs to encourage ai inputs

Re: AI Self-preferencing in Algorithmic Hiring: Empirical Evidence and Insights

#39

Post by Emanation »

johndhi wrote: post #3

Another way to phrase this might be that LLMs make better resumes no?

Where I work, my boss decided to make an application that uses AI to score long text field entries to ensure required information is present.

The AI lacks the ability to extract nuance and implicit information, which means entires end up being long winded and repeatitive. For each requirement its looking for, it must be explicity expressed-- it's quite unnatural, and almost feels like solving a puzzle, to which the obvious solution is to write a comment, then give it and the AI feedback to a failing comment to AI, so it can generate the proper structure the rubric-AI is looking for.

LLMs are statistically driven, and I can only imagine having the AI rewrite the comment produces a result that's more statistically fitting to the model than if any given human were to write it. So, it might mean, yeah, LLMs are better at writing resumes that the LLM can successfully classify-- are they better for a human to consume? Who knows.

Re: AI Self-preferencing in Algorithmic Hiring: Empirical Evidence and Insights

#40

Post by bendergarcia »

einpoklum wrote: post #27

> As artificial intelligence (AI) tools become widely adopted, large language models (LLMs) are increasingly involved ... [in] ... decision-making processes That's the problem right there.

Absolutely! I don’t think people are really considering the full effects of just letting ai be the middle man. I mean Sam Altman basically said this is what he wants Gwen he said intelligence is a commodity no?
Post reply on HN