5 ms·

There's a qualitative difference between using AI for sourcing—that is, finding candidates you would not find normally—and using it for assessment. The impact

There's a qualitative difference between using AI for sourcing—that is, finding candidates you would not find normally—and using it for assessment. The impact of a biased source is attenuated by having other sources and by the rest of your assessment process. Perhaps you end up with a marginally "worse" pool of candidates at the top of your hiring funnel... but, frankly, it's already hard to do much worse than the mix of LinkedIn keyword searches, resume screens and ad hoc channels teams use today. Crucially, if this happens, the impact on any given candidate is minimal—a bit more competition that, if the rest of the process is any good, should be negligible. The impact of bias in how you reject candidates, on the other hand, fundamentally cannot be compensated for in the remaining process. A rejected candidate is already out! Any bias in rejecting steps is going to be directly reflected in the sort of teams you can recruit. Mixing together sourcing methods that are biased in different ways can cancel out the bias. Mixing together assessment steps that are biased in different ways compounds the bias. Traditional resumes are pretty awful any way you look at it[1] and developing new ways of sourcing qualified candidates that get overlooked by the traditional approach doesn't create the sorts of problems that new assessment methods do, so the research you're describing seems unambiguously useful. [1]: interviewing.io did a cool study looking at how resumes compare against the mock interview performance of users on their site. They just don't work well. This isn't a peer-reviewed study, of course, but, frankly, the data and approach are more compelling than some of the peer-reviewed research I've seen on the subject. https://blog.interviewing.io/resumes-suck-heres-the-data/ https://blog.interviewing.io/resumes-suck-heres-the-data/

BlargMcLarg 4y ago
Traditional resumes being useless has been pretty well researched for decades. Hiring is just stubborn and slow.
mistrial9 4y ago
you make a couple of good points, regarding sourcing, and hint at compounding effects, which is probably a very deep topic here. I tipped my hand by indicating I was mildly annoyed, and failed to differentiate between perceived positives and negatives in the process. So I will try to fill that in a bit.. Let's start with aptitude/talent of the candidate. Certainly those with aptitude and/or talent might be hidden in the modern floods of resumes. People lie about skills, and supporting "automated investigation" might refute or amplify assertions. People also miss critical elements in describing themselves, so something similar would apply there. Your point that this kind of automation might increase pools of candidates, and thereby making a chance for some people currently overlooked, is consistent with the merit found in the research grant. Is that the whole story however? Is there a shortage of skilled people doing paid computer activity? It is no secret that wage negotiation is ongoing and will essentially never be solved. Individual people grow and change, especially in the second decade of life. Industry conditions change, especially with web-related work. And, the industry itself is famously seeking bargains. Outsourcing is a constant on the Internet. There are many more people than jobs at any given time, but most people are not great fits or even able to do a job. So.. how to draw some conclusions there, about where "automated investigation and classification of human beings as workers" might fit in. It is literally true that some large-scale business seeks to make replaceable work roles such that low-skill, low-commitment people can be replaced in large numbers on any given week. Wages and benefits can be cut and sometimes aggressively cut, amidst that churn. Is there a shortage of college-educated adults who are willing to participate as "churn" elements, also known as gig-work? Perhaps, but for stable social lives, reliable income, stability to raise a family, retirement and medical benefits, gig-work acts like a chemical solvent, literally dissolving the bonds, seniority and commitments needed for longer term stability to grow. More comments about wage working in the USA and elsewhere could be made, but overall this part would fit into the "uses of the technology" side, not the technology itself per se. Another angle worth mentioning is the difference between developing skills in a workplace over time, creating the environment that sustains skill development, and seeing the benefits of skill development return to the skill holder, rather than the corporation. This worker-side of worklife historically overlaps mentors, ranking, seniority and self-determination of the skill holder. Almost none of the "automated investigation" lends itself to this side, at first appraisel. If there is someone who has unfound skills in rigorous or rare aptitudes, there would be some context to that since it takes time to grow stronger. That sort of thing would almost certainly be included in a resume. Overall, I claim that the "automated investigation" of employee aptitude strongly aids a "race to the bottom" of lowest wage for highest skill, and does almost nothing to build and retain skill over time by the skill holder. My reason for being "mildly annoyed" probably has more to do with systematically declining to engage mid-level skilled workers in mid-life in mid- to high-cost of living societies, and not so much to do with finding and engaging people who are overlooked by the current system. Since I do not have the problem of thousands of over-stated resumes for ordinary roles to filter through, the filtering side of "refuting false claims on resumes" is not a problem for me, though this technology is certainly primed for that.

BlargMcLarg 4y ago

Traditional resumes being useless has been pretty well researched for decades. Hiring is just stubborn and slow.

mistrial9 4y ago

you make a couple of good points, regarding sourcing, and hint at compounding effects, which is probably a very deep topic here. I tipped my hand by indicating I was mildly annoyed, and failed to differentiate between perceived positives and negatives in the process. So I will try to fill that in a bit.. Let's start with aptitude/talent of the candidate. Certainly those with aptitude and/or talent might be hidden in the modern floods of resumes. People lie about skills, and supporting "automated investigation" might refute or amplify assertions. People also miss critical elements in describing themselves, so something similar would apply there. Your point that this kind of automation might increase pools of candidates, and thereby making a chance for some people currently overlooked, is consistent with the merit found in the research grant. Is that the whole story however? Is there a shortage of skilled people doing paid computer activity? It is no secret that wage negotiation is ongoing and will essentially never be solved. Individual people grow and change, especially in the second decade of life. Industry conditions change, especially with web-related work. And, the industry itself is famously seeking bargains. Outsourcing is a constant on the Internet. There are many more people than jobs at any given time, but most people are not great fits or even able to do a job. So.. how to draw some conclusions there, about where "automated investigation and classification of human beings as workers" might fit in. It is literally true that some large-scale business seeks to make replaceable work roles such that low-skill, low-commitment people can be replaced in large numbers on any given week. Wages and benefits can be cut and sometimes aggressively cut, amidst that churn. Is there a shortage of college-educated adults who are willing to participate as "churn" elements, also known as gig-work? Perhaps, but for stable social lives, reliable income, stability to raise a family, retirement and medical benefits, gig-work acts like a chemical solvent, literally dissolving the bonds, seniority and commitments needed for longer term stability to grow. More comments about wage working in the USA and elsewhere could be made, but overall this part would fit into the "uses of the technology" side, not the technology itself per se. Another angle worth mentioning is the difference between developing skills in a workplace over time, creating the environment that sustains skill development, and seeing the benefits of skill development return to the skill holder, rather than the corporation. This worker-side of worklife historically overlaps mentors, ranking, seniority and self-determination of the skill holder. Almost none of the "automated investigation" lends itself to this side, at first appraisel. If there is someone who has unfound skills in rigorous or rare aptitudes, there would be some context to that since it takes time to grow stronger. That sort of thing would almost certainly be included in a resume. Overall, I claim that the "automated investigation" of employee aptitude strongly aids a "race to the bottom" of lowest wage for highest skill, and does almost nothing to build and retain skill over time by the skill holder. My reason for being "mildly annoyed" probably has more to do with systematically declining to engage mid-level skilled workers in mid-life in mid- to high-cost of living societies, and not so much to do with finding and engaging people who are overlooked by the current system. Since I do not have the problem of thousands of over-stated resumes for ordinary roles to filter through, the filtering side of "refuting false claims on resumes" is not a problem for me, though this technology is certainly primed for that.