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

81–90 of 190 posts

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

#81

Post by b112 »

hyperpape wrote: post #23

I'll copy what I wrote on LinkedIn (note: I read roughly 25 pages, which is half the paper, and read it quickly)[0]: "If I read the paper correctly, they don’t actually show that LLMs prefer resumes they generate. Their actual method seems to be taking a human written resume, deleting the executive summary, having an LLM rewrite the executive summary based on the rest of the resume and then having another LLM rate th…

Could be an ad for 'use LLMs more'. A generic ad like this helps all in the market, but if you own 30% of LLM market share, it still helps you 30% of the time.

Now that I think of it, every other industry has an 'advocacy group', whether cheese, oil, or nutmeg. So surely there is now some sort of LLM 'consortium', and group funding studies like this just fuels the FOMO. You can be sure such groups exist, and are pummeling every government in the world thusly. But I bet they're also looking here.

After all, it's a circle. Uh-oh! HR is using LLMs, you'd better too potential employee! Then later? Uh-oh! The best employees you can hire are using LLMs, you'd better too HR!

They already FOMOed us into basically everything else, why not LLMs too?

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

#83

Post by newsy-combi »

leonidasv wrote: post #74
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…

Same thing happened to my wife as well. I helped her tailor her LinkedIn profile and resume with a lot of attention to detail: adding metrics, keywords, results, etc. Nevertheless, she never received any outreach recruiters and got very few application responses. It went like that for months, almost a year. Then she asked ChatGPT 5.x for help. I was skeptical about the changes it recommended (and was skeptical at all…

Kafkaesque

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

#84

Post by adrianN »

bendergarcia wrote: post #35
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

Not too long ago I bet resumes that were printed from a computer were preferred to resumes typed on a typewriter. What happened was that computers became commodities. It is reasonable to assume that LLMs will become commodified too.

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

#85

Post by bjourne »

noprocrasted wrote: post #73
bjourne wrote: post #62

The only test that has worked 100% of the time for me is to read the candidate's code. Two hours is enough to precisely estimate the candidate's qualities as a software developer. I never understood why companies waste time with tests and quizzes because since it is so easy for me it should be just as easy for other software developers too. Of course, a candidate may be a jerk or unfit for other reasons, but ranking…

Just like they'll send you an LLM'd resume, they will send you LLM'd code.

Conceptually no different from copy-pasting someone else's code.

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

#86

Post by tayo42 »

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…

Llms were good for being objective and helping cut out stuff from mine. Harder to do when you personally think everything you ever did is important.

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

#87

Post by j45 »

leonidasv wrote: post #74
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…

Same thing happened to my wife as well. I helped her tailor her LinkedIn profile and resume with a lot of attention to detail: adding metrics, keywords, results, etc. Nevertheless, she never received any outreach recruiters and got very few application responses. It went like that for months, almost a year. Then she asked ChatGPT 5.x for help. I was skeptical about the changes it recommended (and was skeptical at all…

Having implemented more than a few applicant tracking systems, too many are so anchored in the past, that they would probably try to boil the ocean at once by letting AI loose on it, leaving an ability for ai resumes to ai applicant tracking systems.

The key insight here is humans are responsible for improved articulation to the ai, who in turn will improve the rest, and that can be as detailed and informative, and educational as the human likes.

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

#89

Post by zdragnar »

grey-area wrote: post #69
amelius wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

It seems more likely the HR people depend on LLMs to do the job of screening and LLMs unsurprisingly prefer LLM output and rank it highly. It’s not lazy incompetence, it’s quietly getting the job done with 1% of the effort (that was a sarcastic pastiche, in case anyone was unsure).

It's not uncommon to get hundreds or thousands of applications per opening for web tech, if the position is advertised on LinkedIn or a similar job board.

They'd need to use some automation, even if it is just picking ten at random.

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

#90

Post by aDyslecticCrow »

rogermarley wrote: post #41

I think resumes will eventually (or have already) become obsolete in tech. The SNR is so low, they offer very thin filtering value. Even taking the tiny bits of the resume that are "hard signal", like GPA, certifications, prior roles, etc, it doesn't translate into their performance in the initial screening interview. This is why what I think the industry sorely needs is examination consortia. Rather than trying to g…

> standardized tests in various fields

This is itself a massively difficult problem. Standardised tests are bad indicator of topic understanding. (setting aside the massive incentive for blatant cheating)

You're effectively advocating for leetcode being effective hiring tool, which many would highly criticize.

Post reply on HN