[abhpro]

I don't understand why automated applications is unethical. If most companies won't spend the time to manually look at each application, why expect applicants to manually apply to every company. I don't even use services like those but I think the current system is flawed for today's job market so it's hard to even say what is ethical right now.

[lolinder]

I already said: we review every application manually, as do most people who have spoken up on threads like this. All you're accomplishing is burning out those of us in hiring, which makes the market worse for everyone.

It's unethical by Kant's universalizability principle: if everyone did it the hiring market would turn into a complete craps shoot.

[antisthenes]

> All you're accomplishing is burning out those of us in hiring, which makes the market worse for everyone.

The fundamental difference of course being that the applicant might need the job to eat and put a roof over their head, while the hiring people are employed and doing their job.

I get it, it sucks to be burnt out. But the often forgotten nuance of the job market is that there is a huge power asymmetry in hiring.

[lolinder]

And I'm emphasizing that this kind of behavior is not going to get you a job, it's only making everyone's life worse. It's counterproductive in the extreme.

Give me one testimonial of someone who credibly demonstrates that these applications work.

[dennis_jeeves2]

>I already said: we review every application manually,

I would say your company is a rarity.

[lolinder]

On what basis? The only people I've seen claiming this is prevalent are frustrated applicants, but I'd love to hear from someone who actually has seen the inside of one of these companies that uses AI filters in bulk.

[umvi]

It's a chicken and egg problem. Companies would likely look at every application if there were only a few. But if there are 1000 for every position and most are automated then companies have to automate filtering on their end too.