|
|
|
|
|
by remyp
318 days ago
|
|
Gleaning information isn't the goal; whittling down deluge of applicants is. For the company, candidate time is free and manager time is massively expensive. The AI tools are cheaper than hiring more HR staff, so companies buy them lest they be haunted by the ghost of Milton Friedman. Anybody who has been on the hiring side post-GPT knows why these AI tools are getting built: people and/or their bots are blind-applying to every job everywhere regardless of their skillset. The last mid-level Python dev job I posted had 300 applicants in the first hour, with 1/4 of them being from acupuncturists and restaurant servers who have never written a line of code. Sure, they're easy to screen out, but there are thousands to sift through. Having said that, I don't like AI interview tools and will not be using them. I do understand why others do, though. |
|
That has to be due to policy failure of forcing people on benefits to apply for jobs to get benefits, even if they already have applied to all suitable jobs there are right now?