3 ms·
LLMs not performing worse than non-technical people isn't a good thing. Non-technical people also filter out the best candidates. "[whittling] the number down"
by ZephyrBlu 3y ago
LLMs not performing worse than non-technical people isn't a good thing. Non-technical people also filter out the best candidates.
"[whittling] the number down" is generally not a good way to find the best applicants, because it is purely focused on reducing the number of applications rather than picking out potentially good ones. It's a safe, low-risk approach that reduces variance.
- flappyeagle 3y agoIt depends on what instruction you give. You’re making a lot of wild assumptions.
- ZephyrBlu 3y agoWhat instructions do you provide then? It's not a wild assumption when easily 95% of people/companies operate like this.
- flappyeagle 3y agoI provide instructions that are specifically tailored to the role I’m hiring for
- SantalBlush 3y agoI think the idea is that any set of rules or principles for filtering applications can and will be gamed.
- esafak 3y agoThe candidates don't know your filters.
- ip26 3y agoWhittling out chaff does help you get a better view of the average quality, and there’s no point reading 400 resumes if 200 of them are basically resume spam.
- ZephyrBlu 3y agoWhy do you care about average quality? You're hiring a specific person. These kind of things should be rule-in, not rule-out. You also cannot tell the difference between resume spam and a potential candidate until you read the resume. 400 resumes @ 1min per (Which is generous) is ~7hrs. 400 resumes @ 10sec per is only ~1hr. Recruiters might be useful at filtering out obvious spam, though I don't feel like can help with much past that and I think they're also liable to put legitimate but unconventional candidates in the spam pile.
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- flappyeagle 3y agoAverage quality matters because you need to be realistic with the talent level you’re able to attract