[gedy]

In my limited world view and 35 year career, the big shift I see (which I view is a problem) is that companies seem to lean way more on young HR types to recruit and filter than in the past. I can’t speak for everyone, but to me it seems it used to be a lot more common for the skilled hiring manager to be responsible for looking for new hires.

[nradov]

That happened because online job sites made it so easy for candidates to apply that hiring managers could no longer personally keep up with the flood. It's a bad situation for both employers and candidates but there doesn't seem to be any practical alternative.

[carlosjobim]

But then you're making it even worse by hiring inexperienced HR staff to do your hiring? Who mostly make their hiring decisions on whether they would want to have sex with a candidate.

[jjav]

> That happened because online job sites made it so easy for candidates to apply that hiring managers could no longer personally keep up with the flood.

Yes, this is a big factor. As an actively hiring manager, there's nothing worse than when HR enables receiving resumes through linkedin apply. We got a flood of many thousands of resumes. While I feel a duty to review them all, it's just flat out impossible so I had to skip most of them without reading.

On my most recent hire I'm glad HR stopped that and required people to file through the company website. Volume was reduced to many hundreds, which is more tractable. I still wasn't able to review them all, but at least a much higher percentage, like 60% instead of 2%

[lisbbb]

There has to be a way to limit the flood--someone has to pay a fee someplace.

[vee-kay]

The only fee will be a subscription to AI LLM.

AI will do a cheap job of automatically filtering the potential candidates for a hire.

A suitable AI LLM can even be leveraged as automation that calls up the filtered candidates and evaluates them for the basics.

So that would filter the wheat from the chaff.

And then the humans can take the process further to interview and select the candidates for the hire.

So yeah, AI will replace the HR recruiters at least for the mundane tasks.

[deaux]

Resumes will be increasingly fake, at the same rate. We're already seeing this. Recently interviewed a guy clearly using AI interview cheating tools, which is much higher barrier and risk than just making up shit on your resume.

[nradov]

Anything that charges a fee for candidates to apply to a job is a scam.

[harvey9]

Maybe only accept applications by post.

[pempem]

Ok - this obviously doesn't work everywhere but recently was flown to a city for an interview. Day long, full loop, 5 45 min interviews + 1 working session with a panel. Had dinner with the team the night before.

There's no way to cheat at that point. You either have what they need (yay btw) or its not a fit

[lotsofpulp]

The above posts are discussing how to evaluate and narrow down the avalanche of applications to decide who to fly in for an interview.

[ghaff]

Though honestly 40 years ago, sending out hundreds of cookie cutter applications by post wasn’t that hard.

I do agree that once someone gets through an initial filter and screen they should be willing to meet in person. That has costs on both sides but, during the tech boom, one heard a lot of complaints by applicants that they’re no going to travel for interviews, dinner, etc. <shrug>