[leoc]

I think you have misunderstood what I was saying. I didn't compare total productivity with high-touch manual work from a recruiting agency in the actually-existing 2026 to total productivity without that same manual work in the actually-existing 2026. I agree (or certainly find it plausible) that in our actually-existing 2026 total productivity is likely higher with the extra manual work from recruiters than without it. What I compared was total productivity with high-touch manual work from a recruiting agency in the actually-existing 2026 to total productivity, without that same extra manual work, in a hypothetical 2026 where modern (GPT-4-or-better) LLMs don't exist (or at least don't exist yet). That's the relevant comparison when it comes to asking the question "what impact have LLMs had on productivity?" The actually-having-existed 2019 or 2022 are probably a decent proxy for the hypothetical 2026 here.

[AdieuToLogic]

There is no need for this degree of obfuscation.

Put simply, organizations needing skilled personnel can delegate post-application screening to their set of approved staffing firms. Said organizations can employ initial screening techniques to filter out obvious fraud, such as requiring online applicants prove they possess the email/cell phone provided via industry standard mechanisms (while employing deny-lists as applicable). Given the remuneration commitment each hire represents year-over-year and the ability to hold staffing firms accountable, their fees are typically quite reasonable.

Why you introduced the question "what impact have LLMs had on productivity?" in this context escapes me.