[LinXitoW]

What's the alternative? Everyones up in arms, but I see ZERO viable alternatives proposed.

If you have 1000 applications for every job, and you know that a bunch of these applications are "a bad fit", to put it mildly, you have to filter. And you cannot realistically give every resume a good, human look. By the time HR would be done, the market has already moved on five times.

So, what is the real difference between being overlooked because HR could only look at the first 100 resumes, or the AI filtered all 1000 resumes down to 100? In the end, a fuckton of potentially great people get their feelings hurt either way.

[sevenzero]

>instead of just interviewing 10-20 people and just pick one

Here's a realistic proposition. HR just wants to inflate numbers so that they seem busy looking for the right fit. Keep posting open for 1 week, manually filter for another week, invite people, employ one. Plenty of people with degrees looking for jobs right now, I don't see what's the issue with just trying one. Companies desperately look for the "magic" applicant that checks all boxes, while also trying to pay them almost minimum wage.

[kasey_junk]

If your hiring pipeline is employing a filter that a) is not better than a random chance and b) is expensive to implement get rid of the filter.

Instead of spending all those resources on resume filtering, hire resume blind. Instead of using llms for a thing they are bad at (subjective decision making) use them to build a deterministic process that isn’t.

Use work sample hiring as the filter. Make the work sample automatic to sign up for and judge.

[RugnirViking]

great question. The alternative is not accepting 1000 applicants. Nobody said you have to keep up your job posting for two weeks, or two hours for that matter. stop once you have enough. Enough is defined by whatever number you would have filtered to. In the rare case none of the first ten applicants were appropriate, just open it again until youve got another tranche.

[jarito]

You are assuming quality applicants are evenly distributed in terms of time of application - they aren’t. If you cut off at 100, you will only get a sample of people spewing fully automated application bots which mostly aren’t what you want.

[MichaelDickens]

If that's true, then it suggests an easy fix: leave your application up for four hours, then discard all applications you get for the first two.

[Arodex]

That's just another type of randomness (who was online during the short time the posting was opened).

[Xirdus]

"Being online during the short time" heavily favors bots. In a way, AI screening tools saved us from the future of everybody buying resume-spamming-as-a-service because it became as important to use these as getting a college degree.

[RugnirViking]

right. But if you go online and look for a job, then the ones you are available at that moment will actually read your application

[sevenzero]

At least this would not force applicants to fine tune their applications to the latest LLM bullshit bingo.

[Xirdus]

> If you have 1000 applications for every job, and you know that a bunch of these applications are "a bad fit", to put it mildly, you have to filter. And you cannot realistically give every resume a good, human look.

At 10 seconds per resume, it would take you 3 hours to go through all 1000 resumes. I don't know what you consider "good" and "human", but my human eyes could easily do good enough, fully manual pre-screening at a rate of 1 requisition per day.

[BeetleB]

> At 10 seconds per resume, it would take you 3 hours to go through all 1000 resumes.

At 10 seconds per resume, I would not assume that you're screening better than the LLM.

[AlexeyBelov]

You could remove the least relevant resumes very quickly. Maybe not 10 seconds, but 30 seconds per resume for sure.

What I hear happens now: people apply for a "Senior Golang SWE" with 2 years of experience with C#. Or, relevant for hiring in the US, the job posting says the visa is required, but people apply without it anyway.

[bee_rider]

It’s weird because unemployment is still quite low, right?

Maybe a platform could be designed where candidates have one account for multiple companies, and the number of applications on the platform is limited to, say, ten per person per month or something. To get people to be selective. I don’t think this should be the only way to apply, but maybe the companies involved could look there first.