4 ms·

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

by amelius 6mo ago

ben_w 6mo ago
Some will, others openly say on the job ad they will fail you for using AI.
- dawnerd 6mo ago
  I know if I got a resume from someone that had obviously used AI to generate it, it would be a pass.
  - drillsteps5 6mo ago
    Before the resume ends up in the hiring manager's inbox it needs to be picked by the recruiter from literally hundreds of others. The recruiter uses HR software to determine the match (usually the percentage), and then picks top 5% or top 20 or whatever highest ranked resumes. Guess what's doing the ranking.
    - dawnerd 6mo ago
      That’s assuming everyone is doing it that way.
      - ben_w 6mo ago
        [dead]
  - bell-cot 6mo ago
    What if your own HR's LLM didn't send you any other kind?
- izacus 6mo ago
  And then still use a CV scanning service that rejects non-AI resumes.
grey-area 6mo ago
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).
- zdragnar 6mo ago
  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.
  - normie3000 6mo ago
    Maybe? I've filtered 300-400 CVs by hand before, and didn't find it particularly time consuming to bin the ones which clearly didn't meet requirements or have any redeeming features. And hiring was not my full-time role.
    - cyberax 6mo ago
      The last time I posted on HN in the 1-st of the month hiring post, I got around 2 thousand resumes. Pretty much all of them were this kind of: "Increased the performance of the service by 23.123213%" collection of bullet points. PS: I replied to most of them, I think, but I'm sorry if I missed somebody :(
    - anthuswilliams 6mo ago
      At 90 seconds per resume, that would take up a full 8 hour day. Having gone through this myself, I don't think it's possible to do this much faster than that, even if you have an ATS that optimizes for that workflow. I often found myself falling into patterns of poor judgement, e.g. mentally filtering out resumes based on the layout because, to my tired and bored mind, they looked similar to the resumes I had seen from unqualified candidates. I actually think some automation is helpful in evaluating them more rigorously.
  - 6mo ago

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

by amelius 6mo ago

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

ben_w 6mo ago

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

dawnerd 6mo ago
I know if I got a resume from someone that had obviously used AI to generate it, it would be a pass.
- drillsteps5 6mo ago
  Before the resume ends up in the hiring manager's inbox it needs to be picked by the recruiter from literally hundreds of others. The recruiter uses HR software to determine the match (usually the percentage), and then picks top 5% or top 20 or whatever highest ranked resumes. Guess what's doing the ranking.
  - dawnerd 6mo ago
    That’s assuming everyone is doing it that way.
    - ben_w 6mo ago
      [dead]
- bell-cot 6mo ago
  What if your own HR's LLM didn't send you any other kind?
izacus 6mo ago
And then still use a CV scanning service that rejects non-AI resumes.

grey-area 6mo ago

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).

zdragnar 6mo ago
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.
- normie3000 6mo ago
  Maybe? I've filtered 300-400 CVs by hand before, and didn't find it particularly time consuming to bin the ones which clearly didn't meet requirements or have any redeeming features. And hiring was not my full-time role.
  - cyberax 6mo ago
    The last time I posted on HN in the 1-st of the month hiring post, I got around 2 thousand resumes. Pretty much all of them were this kind of: "Increased the performance of the service by 23.123213%" collection of bullet points. PS: I replied to most of them, I think, but I'm sorry if I missed somebody :(
  - anthuswilliams 6mo ago
    At 90 seconds per resume, that would take up a full 8 hour day. Having gone through this myself, I don't think it's possible to do this much faster than that, even if you have an ATS that optimizes for that workflow. I often found myself falling into patterns of poor judgement, e.g. mentally filtering out resumes based on the layout because, to my tired and bored mind, they looked similar to the resumes I had seen from unqualified candidates. I actually think some automation is helpful in evaluating them more rigorously.
- 6mo ago