The optimist in me hopes that this sort of thing kills resumes as a major communication channel for good. High-volume, low-signal, wildly-inflated-claims-as-the-norm structures have been devastating to good hiring, and I have some hope that as gen AI gets traction in job hunting that it'll take resumes from "low signal" to "no signal" enough to force a change.
The pessimist in me says that that just kills inbound entirely and we go back to an almost purely connections/network-driven hiring process because trust in anyone you don't know goes to zero.
> The pessimist in me says that that just kills inbound entirely and we go back to an almost purely connections/network-driven hiring process because trust in anyone you don't know goes to zero.
What is the alternative; interviewing anybody who happens to apply? That is not feasible. Companies need a way to sort out the wheat from the chaff; they'll take any signal they can get.
> What is the alternative; interviewing anybody who happens to apply? That is not feasible. Companies need a way to sort out the wheat from the chaff; they'll take any signal they can get.
Connection. Every field will be as connection-based as politics.
And what if you are introvert or have social anxiety and not good at connecting to people? A lot of such people are very smart and exactly the type of people you would want to hire for some positions. Or what if you have a disability that makes it hard for you to travel and socialize? How about working remotely?
I agree that they need a way to get signal. But resumes have never been a great way to get it - they just happen to be so cheap and every other signal so expensive at top-of-funnel that they've become the norm.
It's a vicious cycle. There's too much volume so we can't interview everyone, we can't interview everyone so candidates are incentivized to be spammy, so there's even more volume and we even more can't interview everyone. It's essentially the same reason that the old boomer "oh just walk in the door and hand them a resume" approach doesn't work anymore - it's too easy and therefore too spammy.
I used to be part of the leadership of one company working on this problem, and just founded another very recently, so it's something I've thought a lot about. I really think the thrust of the problem is:
* Signal is expensive to get, because
* The volume per candidate is too high
...and that the solution is to centralize early screening so you can get good signal. Which is what we're doing. Remains to be seen if it works, obviously.
Video chat and real conversations are the only way forward at this point. Text is no longer a reliable signal as to how qualified or articulate the candidate is.
There are real stories to tell in text (prior experience, projects, certifications, tangible skills), and that sets the stage for the real conversations. Then it’s all about technical questions that require technical answers, and will this person thrive in our team.
I’m in the job market and I have resisted turning to AI for help with my resume. I feel that while AI could absolutely improve upon it the result would not represent who I really am. As a result I am enjoying an extended vacation.
We're headed in this direction because people want seamless & intelligent automation in every aspect of their life. It's about the actual "Hey siri, go do x for me" being a reality.
And it's about AI's ability to actually deliver on that.
It's not about gaming the system or making things up. We try to guide all of the prompts we use to only expand upon or assume details from user prompts. We make strict mention to not make anything up.
I understand AI hallucinates, and alignment is early. But I'm a believer in where we are headed with AI, and I believe there will be a ton of valuable productivity to be gained.
Regarding what the other commenter said... I actually agree... let's kill inbound because human recruiters have been the most egregious players in hiring. As a tech leader I had countless bogus resumes thrown my way, long before AI was a reality. AI imo will revolutionize the hiring experience for the better.
But your product is producing human-formatted content for human recruiters. It sounds like you're interested in increasing the noise until there's no signal, and then hoping someone finds a way to bring the signal back.
We're interested in aiding the job seeker only – gain a fresh place to start with minimal effort. I can't say this enables or inhibits any sort of noise; other than intending to amplify genuine job seekers; again we try to be consistent in our prompts.
In other engagements I'm involved in, not through this product, we are seeking to enable employers. I do believe AI will help reduce noise; my argument is humans have been far worse in creating it than AI could be, and far less productive in filtering it than AI will be.
The pessimist in me says that that just kills inbound entirely and we go back to an almost purely connections/network-driven hiring process because trust in anyone you don't know goes to zero.