7 ms·

I overheard a guy at the gym a couple of weeks back saying that he's automated (gpt4) the keyword-optimised CV/cover letter process to the point where he was ab

• kiltedpanda 3y ago
  We hire on Freelancer sites quite a bit and have noticed that about 50%-80% of applicants now very obviously use ChatGPT or equivalent to apply. Now suddenly every person magically has 8 years experience in a weird esoteric requirement that we're looking for. They are currently very easy to spot and the applications go directly into the trash, so the freelancers aren't doing themselves any favors using them. It is increasing the noise floor a lot though.
  • tarek_computer 3y ago
    What are the most common freelancing sites you use for job postings?
    • kiltedpanda 3y ago
      Freelancer.com and Upwork. Although after the torrent of AI powered garbage we received after our latest posting on Freelancer, I'm not sure we will use that again.
      • tarek_computer 3y ago
        Thank you. I have side question for you. Sorry, all this thread coincides with another thread about LinkedIn and me getting banned without knowing why (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37748263 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37748263). As a job recruiter looking for freelancers, do you expect to find the person on LinkedIn as part of the fact checking process? Would you seriously consider alternating sites such as a person’s website or GitHub and would you find the person a suspect if their LinkedIn profile does not exist ?
        • kiltedpanda 3y ago
          Sorry to hear about your Linkedin profile. Yes, we do look at Linkedin profiles for shortlisted candidates. It helps to establish credibility and for us to get an idea of whether the claimed previous experience is legitimate. We do also ask for Github, but many folks use other repositories. Linkedin is one of the best sources of credibility for us, so I would recommend continuing to try to get it unbanned, or start a new one.
  • deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]
  • jddj 3y ago
    Suppose you could have some fun putting made up technology honeypots in there to weed them out.
    • kiltedpanda 3y ago
      That's a great idea, we will do that.
    • tornato7 3y ago
      I once applied to a job that had recommended experience in applied sitting algorithms. I asked the recruiter WTF sitting algorithms are and she told me it was just a test, and it's surprising how many candidates will say that they've studied sitting algorithms. It works!
  • ToucanLoucan 3y ago
    I mean, big corpos for years have been automating the hiring process to the detriment of their own results. Is it really that surprising applicants are ready to do the same? Now suddenly automation is bad? Hiring managers being butt-hurt that their automated factory farm application process is being inundated with spam generated by other automation is so hilarious to me, this just made my day. You get what you fuckin deserve. If you can't be arsed to review applications with people, why should people be arsed to apply in person?
    • jddj 3y ago
      I wasn't making a value judgement, for what it's worth. I'm not sure the commenter that you're replying to was either.
    • kiltedpanda 3y ago
      It isn't the use of automation that is the problem. It's that in the automated applications we're receiving, there is very obviously fraudulent information in there. The applicants are LYING about their experience, in order to match the job specification. ChatGPT just consumes each of the job requirements, and then makes a story about how the applicant has had significant experience in all of those areas. I would prefer not to hire people who lie about their experience to get a job.
      • ToucanLoucan 3y ago
        > It isn't the use of automation that is the problem. It's that in the automated applications we're receiving, there is very obviously fraudulent information in there. The applicants are LYING about their experience, in order to match the job specification. Who cares? The specifications half the time include experience that's impossible to achieve because the people writing them either are also in turn using automated software and/or because they have no idea what they're hiring for.
        • tuatoru 3y ago
          ... just like in dating!
  • dvngnt_ 3y ago
    have you thought of adding a trap that a LLM might trip on but a human wouldn't.
    • GuB-42 3y ago
      The problem is not the LLM, the lies are the problem. I don't think an employer would mind a résumé that is factually correct, but edited by a LLM. In the style of "here is my résumé, emphasize the items that match this job offer, and also, fix my grammar and spelling". Here, the candidates are using a LLM to invent experience that matches the job offer, making a fake résumé. A human doing it doesn't make it better.
  • thaumaturgy 3y ago
    Okay, but I have a resume that is a good fit for a lot of different roles but isn't seen by any human ever because it doesn't include the specific combination of keywords mentioned in the job posting. I am in the process right now of embedding keywords and a "shadow resume" invisibly in my resume to get past the stupid filtering software. Employers are doing this to themselves.
    • kiltedpanda 3y ago
      Sure, tailoring your resume for a specific job is pretty standard. Perhaps an LLM that has access to your resume, along with loads of documentation on what you have previously done would provide for a much better automation process. It could read the job spec, then tailor your application with information that is actually true. Starting off with a company with information that is false is not a great way to start a (hopefully) long relationship. FWIW, we review every application we receive on the freelancer sites and do not use automated filters.
      • tuatoru 3y ago
        I sometimes think requiring people to telephone and navigate a voice system to get an application ID before they can apply might help. Tiny barriers can have disproportionate effects.
  • roamerz 3y ago
    > Now suddenly every person magically has 8 years experience in a weird esoteric requirement that we're looking for. That's crazy to me. Why would someone put ANYTHING on their resume that is not factually correct? That in the end is a disservice to yourself and to your potential employer, not to mention the pressure it puts on job seekers to push the envelope on embellishment. What I am on the fence about in my own resume is including a skillset that yes I have done but maybe a couple years in the past. Right or wrong I have decided to keep them on their knowing full well that it might create a bit of a challenge for me during the interview process.
    • blitzar 3y ago
      > That's crazy to me. Why would s ... Because it works... They get the job and the person who wasnt captain of the football, tennis, rowing, lacrose, bowling, sailing, cheerleading, chess and debate teams all at the same time is just some unemployable loser. The real question is why managers and recruiters fall for it - the obvious answer is that they got where they got by inflating their CV and simply assume everyone does it too.
      • roamerz 3y ago
        I really hope your obvious answer is not a widespread truth. Seems like a horribly vicious circle.
        • sambazi 3y ago
          idk over-promising and under-delivering is called business isn't it?
          • blitzar 3y ago
            Its a bold demonstration that you have the Sigma Grindset needed for success.
            • sambazi 3y ago
• timmaxw 3y ago
  I think there's a dynamic where: - Desirable job applicants get hired quickly, but people who can't get hired stay on the market - People who can't get hired will keep applying to more and more jobs - So every new job opening gets flooded with applications from people who couldn't get hired elsewhere - Employers don't have time to read the flood of applications in detail, so they rely on cheap filters (keywords on resume, where they went to college, did they work at FANG, etc.) - Which makes the process worse for everyone What if there was some way to limit job seekers to e.g. 10 job applications per month, industrywide? Feels like that could cut down the noise and allow employers to consider each individual applicant more carefully. (It would be hard to implement this limit, though. You could do it via data-sharing between Greenhouse, Lever, Workday, etc., but there are huge privacy concerns and it would run into the same sorts of issues as credit reports do.)
  • bumby 3y ago
    The shortcut around this problem is for companies to rely on networking/recommendations rather than a large net, but that comes with its own downsides.
    • milesvp 3y ago
      A video came across my feed recently talking about this in tech. Was talking about how the advice for getting into tech that worked really well 1+ years ago isn't as effective today. Basically, the idea was that tech was hiring so voraciously, that they couldn't keep up with hiring by relying on networking bringing in enough candidates, so they needed a lot more recruiting efforts to fill the pipeline. This meant, that just grinding leet code and applying was enough to significantly increase the odds of getting hired. Basically the proportion of random application hires to referral hires was high. Today, not so much. I'd expect to need to jump though a lot more hoops today (not that leet code studying isn't it's own major hoop) to get hired. And of course, this proportion will shift again with the next major tech hiring boom.
  • ar_lan 3y ago
    > What if there was some way to limit job seekers to e.g. 10 job applications per month, industrywide? Feels like that could cut down the noise and allow employers to consider each individual applicant more carefully. Beyond the actual difficulty in doing this without a completely centralized hiring process, this feels incredibly immoral. People have families to feed.
• tamimio 3y ago
  > If you're here mate I hope it worked out for you I hope it didn’t, contaminating the applications like this and automating it will only hurt the ones who’s applying, because now authentic resumes and legit knowledge will be overlooked by other fake auto generated resumes. This try hard wannabe attitude is always going to ruin the experience for everyone else, either in jobs, blog writings, dating, gaming, and basically everywhere.
  • jddj 3y ago
    Yeah. With the genie being as far out of the bottle as it is though, I opted for empathy for the unemployed guy in this case. I can see your point, absolutely, and the new normal is unfortunate and probably unsustainable. Careers boards are just another early battleground where we're at a bit of a wait and see moment as for how we're going to deal with all of this cheap, coherent noise.
• willsmith72 3y ago
  People aren't as smart as they think. I also automate part of the process, and I think everyone should be or soon will be, but having received many CVS/cover letters as well, the ones with too much LLM are glaringly obvious and an easy rejection. These days with companies receiving hundreds of CVs, you only need 1 reason to reject an application. Don't make your application so LLMy that you give the hiring manager an easy reason