5 ms·

> “There is a growing gap between the candidate’s written persona and their live presence. I’ll see a cover letter that is poetic and a résumé that is flawlessl

> “There is a growing gap between the candidate’s written persona and their live presence. I’ll see a cover letter that is poetic and a résumé that is flawlessly structured, but then the person on the video call struggles to explain their own bullet points. This has always been a problem: Candidate applies with an amazing resume but then flails when you ask them questions or “can’t remember”. I can remember a few interviews where I asked candidates about something I read on their resume (which I study before every call) and they corrected me to explain that they did something different. Then I held up their resume and pointed to their exact words and they turned bright red while they tried to come up with a new explanation. That was rare, though. You could catch a lot of little cases of stretching the truth, but it wasn’t common to feel like you were reading a resume that didn’t match the candidate. What has changed in the age of AI is that more people are feeling more brazen about letting the AI speak for them. These situations are happening more frequently. You get the feeling that people are less shy about trying to cheat and manipulate because it feels like the AI is doing the cheating and writing the words, so it’s done at arm’s length. I spend some time helping with resume reviews occasionally. It’s getting sad to see in the general discussion of the group when people go from elated that they got an interview for their dream job to embarrassed when the interviewers saw right through their AI written resume and ended the hiring cycle. I wonder if we’re seeing a peak in AI resume junk while everyone tries it out, but before it becomes common knowledge that an AI junk resume is a way to shoot yourself in the foot when applying to companies you actually want to work for.

binary132 4mo ago
The bigger issue is the screening filters are flooded now (and also largely AI “enhanced”) so getting real signal through the noise is becoming basically impossible.
- sivalus 4mo ago
  I think we'll just end up going back to referrals. It might generate more nepotism, but at least the company will feel like it's doing a better job and not cause it to overly focus on hiring to the detriment of its current employees.
  - CuriouslyC 4mo ago
    Companies will open source software just for the express purpose of finding people and having a place to screen hires securely via contract work.
Ozzie-D 4mo ago
[flagged]
somenameforme 4mo ago
It goes the other way as well though. Companies are increasingly filtering resumes/candidates in a sufficiently aggressive fashion to the point that they're strongly incentivizing, if not actively selecting for, people that are gaming the system in some way or another. Quite odd this is all happening when ostensibly the unemployment rate is very low, which should make it an employee's market.
- Aurornis 4mo ago
  > Companies are increasingly filtering resumes/candidates in a sufficiently aggressive fashion to the point that they're strongly incentivizing, if not actively selecting for, people that are gaming the system in some way or another. Which itself is a symptom of companies getting drowned in AI generated resumes. It's becoming more common for people to use AI tools that will operate browsers to mass-submit resumes for them. When you receive 1000 resumes you have to start filtering somewhere. What I'm worried about now is that we're moving to a situation where some level of proof-of-work that an AI can't easily do is going to become necessary to have some filtering. I don't know what that looks like, but I don't like it. > Quite odd this is all happening when ostensibly the unemployment rate is very low, which should make it an employee's market. Unemployment rate is not evenly distributed. If you were a licensed electrician or qualified as a home healthcare aid then you could walk from one job to another in many cities. If you're trying to get a $200K or more tech job, then you're competing with everyone else for a shrinking pool of openings.
  - KaiShips 4mo ago
    [flagged]
  - NooneAtAll3 4mo ago
    I'm pretty sure filtering resume by beauty was a problem long before ai, and stems from hiring people rushing this part of the job as "useless" or smth
  - rekabis 4mo ago
    >Which itself is a symptom of companies getting drowned in AI generated resumes. I would say that it is the exact opposite. IME, it is a tsunami of companies using AI as the gatekeepers as a cost-saving tool, instead of a human in HR, forcing applicants to use AI to get past AI. It’s an arms race by the greedy looking to save a few pennies of payroll, against those whose CVs are just sufficiently non-standard, and so are culled in nearly 100% of AI filtering, so they have no choice but to use AI to write their CVs.
oblio 4mo ago
> This has always been a problem: Candidate applies with an amazing resume but then flails when you ask them questions or “can’t remember”. Yeah, but it's now 1000x worse. Before you needed actual skill (or luck) to create a good looking CV, especially for niche positions. Now you take their job description, the company's "About us" webpage, your old CV and have LLMs generate a CV with pretty solid grammar and most of the verbiage they expect. In the past the average unqualified person wouldn't even know the right words for a specific niche domain, let alone how to use them. Oh, and single LLMs are kind of inherently multilingual, this makes it even worse, because you can have people that barely understand the target language generate a reasonable CV in that language. The CV quality floor has been raised but the candidate floor has fallen through the pits of hell.
- zulux 4mo ago
  We ask for something stupid like "3 years of Pascal experience." If the resume has it, it goes straight to the trash unless it has specific real-world Pascal experience.
  - vkou 4mo ago
    You'll also filter out people smart enough to know that this is a bullshit keyword matching game and the only way to win it is to put the keywords on their resume. Because they assume that the job posting was written by a non-technical idiot, and 95% of the time, they'd be correct, and they are just playing the game as the game expects to be played. Look. If you're looking for 100% integrity and honesty from everyone in their communication, you shouldn't expect find it in a corporation's hiring and HR process. Everyone white-lies (or black-lies) all the time, both up and down the chain. The bones of this interaction do not value, reward, or even want honesty.
    - watwut 4mo ago
      Everyone hates on HR here, but I did found them quite good in companies I worked for. They were not the ones who judged technical skills or even picked people. They scheduled interviews and such. The worst hiring nonsense I have seen came from engineers. Stuff like giving people weird puzzles, rejecting or accepting people on random factoids, "beer test", demanding uber senior experience for an unglamorous boring take jira close jira position. And above all, believing that every good engineer is my copy. It takes an engineer to reject a guy because he reads different blog, has different opinion on programming languages company does not uses anyway. I heard a hiring manager, an engineer, say that he knows whether he wants the guy or not in first 10 second. It is clear in that first sentence from vibes. I genuinely it is people like him who make hiring process into crap.
uberdru 4mo ago
Honestly the problem is hiring teams -- they have created this whole issue. They ask for a resume and cover letter. Fine. But don't make applicants put in the work if you're not even going to provide a response, or any sort of feedback -- even when the position stays open for months. The result is that people looking for jobs have to submit huge numbers of custom cover letters, and tweaked resumes, with no feedback, all within a vacuum. Hence the feeling that they need to "pump up" their resume, just to get over the initial gate.
- maccard 4mo ago
  Hiring manager here - the last job I posted was open for 6 weeks. We waited 2 weeks for initial applications, and it took 4 weeks to schedule interviews with our shortlist and get to an offer, including a very unfortunate 2 week holiday from someone that allowed us down. We got 350 applications for it. We listed in the JD that remote was ok but needed to be in specific countries for us to hire. I’d guess 90% of the applicants were outside those countries. Of the remained the problem is that most of them all have the skills we’re looking for. One thing is for sure, I read every single cover letter that came through, and I’d say that the vast majority of ones that made an actual effort we interviewed.
  - atoav 4mo ago
    I once casted volunteer actors for short movies. It costed me literally nothing to write: "Deadline for application is $DATE, you will hear from us within X days. You will either get a rejection or an invitation to a casting on $CASTINGDATE1 or $CASTINGDATE2." And on the casting I personally guaranteed for a date when they will get a result. Rejections included feedback that helped candidates understand our decision and improve their craft. This is in my opinion how you do things when you have a shred of respect for the people on the other side. Actors greatly valued how we did things. If you can't live with the insecurity of knowing whether you're able to keep those dates, just make a pessimistic guess and add a few days on top. It is really not that hard.
    - maccard 4mo ago
bee_rider 4mo ago
I have one project on my resume that I have trouble remembering some details of. It feels weird to drop it off (it was an internship at a sort of well known company), but it was a while ago. Is “can’t remember details” still a huge red flag from the employer’s point of view, even if the explanation is legitimate? It’s not exactly the crown jewel of my resume anyway, so I guess I could cut it, it just adds to my backstory.
- jghn 4mo ago
  People understand that memories get foggy over time. Well, at least most people will. As an interviewer I allow for a sliding scale of inability to drill in on details based on how much time elapsed. Also, you'll find that people are typically pretty consistent in what they retain. Like they'll remember the big picture, key challenges, and outcomes. but they may not remember a specific technique used or other day to day decisions. For my own resume I do a similar adjustment. As things start to age out a bit I intentionally provide fewer specifics. Again, people understand what signals like this mean.
- deleted 4mo ago
  [deleted]
tayo42 4mo ago
Resumes are written for hr Ideally we submit 2 resumes one for the non technical people that need to be involved and one for managers. Instead were attempting to write for two audiences (or 3?automated filters) and the less knowledgeable one will reject without talking to you
zombot 4mo ago
Devil's advocate: In a culture where lying and cheating is venerated once you get rich enough doing it, don't these candidates just demonstrate how they've deeply understood and internalized the most important rules? Fake it till you make it. Naturally, getting busted by follow-up questions reveals them to be bloody greenhorns who didn't rehearse enough.
Avrio15272 4mo ago
[dead]

binary132 4mo ago

The bigger issue is the screening filters are flooded now (and also largely AI “enhanced”) so getting real signal through the noise is becoming basically impossible.

sivalus 4mo ago
I think we'll just end up going back to referrals. It might generate more nepotism, but at least the company will feel like it's doing a better job and not cause it to overly focus on hiring to the detriment of its current employees.
- CuriouslyC 4mo ago
  Companies will open source software just for the express purpose of finding people and having a place to screen hires securely via contract work.

Ozzie-D 4mo ago

[flagged]

somenameforme 4mo ago

It goes the other way as well though. Companies are increasingly filtering resumes/candidates in a sufficiently aggressive fashion to the point that they're strongly incentivizing, if not actively selecting for, people that are gaming the system in some way or another. Quite odd this is all happening when ostensibly the unemployment rate is very low, which should make it an employee's market.

Aurornis 4mo ago
> Companies are increasingly filtering resumes/candidates in a sufficiently aggressive fashion to the point that they're strongly incentivizing, if not actively selecting for, people that are gaming the system in some way or another. Which itself is a symptom of companies getting drowned in AI generated resumes. It's becoming more common for people to use AI tools that will operate browsers to mass-submit resumes for them. When you receive 1000 resumes you have to start filtering somewhere. What I'm worried about now is that we're moving to a situation where some level of proof-of-work that an AI can't easily do is going to become necessary to have some filtering. I don't know what that looks like, but I don't like it. > Quite odd this is all happening when ostensibly the unemployment rate is very low, which should make it an employee's market. Unemployment rate is not evenly distributed. If you were a licensed electrician or qualified as a home healthcare aid then you could walk from one job to another in many cities. If you're trying to get a $200K or more tech job, then you're competing with everyone else for a shrinking pool of openings.
- KaiShips 4mo ago
  [flagged]
- NooneAtAll3 4mo ago
  I'm pretty sure filtering resume by beauty was a problem long before ai, and stems from hiring people rushing this part of the job as "useless" or smth
- rekabis 4mo ago
  >Which itself is a symptom of companies getting drowned in AI generated resumes. I would say that it is the exact opposite. IME, it is a tsunami of companies using AI as the gatekeepers as a cost-saving tool, instead of a human in HR, forcing applicants to use AI to get past AI. It’s an arms race by the greedy looking to save a few pennies of payroll, against those whose CVs are just sufficiently non-standard, and so are culled in nearly 100% of AI filtering, so they have no choice but to use AI to write their CVs.

oblio 4mo ago

> This has always been a problem: Candidate applies with an amazing resume but then flails when you ask them questions or “can’t remember”. Yeah, but it's now 1000x worse. Before you needed actual skill (or luck) to create a good looking CV, especially for niche positions. Now you take their job description, the company's "About us" webpage, your old CV and have LLMs generate a CV with pretty solid grammar and most of the verbiage they expect. In the past the average unqualified person wouldn't even know the right words for a specific niche domain, let alone how to use them. Oh, and single LLMs are kind of inherently multilingual, this makes it even worse, because you can have people that barely understand the target language generate a reasonable CV in that language. The CV quality floor has been raised but the candidate floor has fallen through the pits of hell.

zulux 4mo ago
We ask for something stupid like "3 years of Pascal experience." If the resume has it, it goes straight to the trash unless it has specific real-world Pascal experience.
- vkou 4mo ago
  You'll also filter out people smart enough to know that this is a bullshit keyword matching game and the only way to win it is to put the keywords on their resume. Because they assume that the job posting was written by a non-technical idiot, and 95% of the time, they'd be correct, and they are just playing the game as the game expects to be played. Look. If you're looking for 100% integrity and honesty from everyone in their communication, you shouldn't expect find it in a corporation's hiring and HR process. Everyone white-lies (or black-lies) all the time, both up and down the chain. The bones of this interaction do not value, reward, or even want honesty.
  - watwut 4mo ago
    Everyone hates on HR here, but I did found them quite good in companies I worked for. They were not the ones who judged technical skills or even picked people. They scheduled interviews and such. The worst hiring nonsense I have seen came from engineers. Stuff like giving people weird puzzles, rejecting or accepting people on random factoids, "beer test", demanding uber senior experience for an unglamorous boring take jira close jira position. And above all, believing that every good engineer is my copy. It takes an engineer to reject a guy because he reads different blog, has different opinion on programming languages company does not uses anyway. I heard a hiring manager, an engineer, say that he knows whether he wants the guy or not in first 10 second. It is clear in that first sentence from vibes. I genuinely it is people like him who make hiring process into crap.

uberdru 4mo ago

Honestly the problem is hiring teams -- they have created this whole issue. They ask for a resume and cover letter. Fine. But don't make applicants put in the work if you're not even going to provide a response, or any sort of feedback -- even when the position stays open for months. The result is that people looking for jobs have to submit huge numbers of custom cover letters, and tweaked resumes, with no feedback, all within a vacuum. Hence the feeling that they need to "pump up" their resume, just to get over the initial gate.

maccard 4mo ago
Hiring manager here - the last job I posted was open for 6 weeks. We waited 2 weeks for initial applications, and it took 4 weeks to schedule interviews with our shortlist and get to an offer, including a very unfortunate 2 week holiday from someone that allowed us down. We got 350 applications for it. We listed in the JD that remote was ok but needed to be in specific countries for us to hire. I’d guess 90% of the applicants were outside those countries. Of the remained the problem is that most of them all have the skills we’re looking for. One thing is for sure, I read every single cover letter that came through, and I’d say that the vast majority of ones that made an actual effort we interviewed.
- atoav 4mo ago
  I once casted volunteer actors for short movies. It costed me literally nothing to write: "Deadline for application is $DATE, you will hear from us within X days. You will either get a rejection or an invitation to a casting on $CASTINGDATE1 or $CASTINGDATE2." And on the casting I personally guaranteed for a date when they will get a result. Rejections included feedback that helped candidates understand our decision and improve their craft. This is in my opinion how you do things when you have a shred of respect for the people on the other side. Actors greatly valued how we did things. If you can't live with the insecurity of knowing whether you're able to keep those dates, just make a pessimistic guess and add a few days on top. It is really not that hard.
  - maccard 4mo ago

bee_rider 4mo ago

I have one project on my resume that I have trouble remembering some details of. It feels weird to drop it off (it was an internship at a sort of well known company), but it was a while ago. Is “can’t remember details” still a huge red flag from the employer’s point of view, even if the explanation is legitimate? It’s not exactly the crown jewel of my resume anyway, so I guess I could cut it, it just adds to my backstory.

jghn 4mo ago
People understand that memories get foggy over time. Well, at least most people will. As an interviewer I allow for a sliding scale of inability to drill in on details based on how much time elapsed. Also, you'll find that people are typically pretty consistent in what they retain. Like they'll remember the big picture, key challenges, and outcomes. but they may not remember a specific technique used or other day to day decisions. For my own resume I do a similar adjustment. As things start to age out a bit I intentionally provide fewer specifics. Again, people understand what signals like this mean.
deleted 4mo ago
[deleted]

tayo42 4mo ago

Resumes are written for hr Ideally we submit 2 resumes one for the non technical people that need to be involved and one for managers. Instead were attempting to write for two audiences (or 3?automated filters) and the less knowledgeable one will reject without talking to you

zombot 4mo ago

Devil's advocate: In a culture where lying and cheating is venerated once you get rich enough doing it, don't these candidates just demonstrate how they've deeply understood and internalized the most important rules? Fake it till you make it. Naturally, getting busted by follow-up questions reveals them to be bloody greenhorns who didn't rehearse enough.

Avrio15272 4mo ago

[dead]