You're viewing a single thread.
What's the issue here? It's literally making it easier to weed out unqualified individuals.
Because then the applicant uses AI to apply for the job, and it's just AI all the way down
Have you never heard of a "career change"?
Yes, though no one is obligated to help with one. Employers generally want directly relevant experience.
A career change takes more than cold online applications. It’s a situation where you need to network and take advantage take of any ins you can.
Yes, just network and find a job! Wow! Why didn't I think of that?
Are you scoffing at the idea of networking?
Why do you think an AI is in the position to know what makes a qualified individual? It probably rejects every resume it views as not fitting its standard template. Wanting to hire the next Einstein? Well too bad, he's neurodivergent and he doesn't write a resume the way the AI wants him to. Also, he has an "ethnic" name so that's an automatic rejection.
Do you think there’s enough information in the application to decide? If that information is there, then you shouldn’t categorically assume AI is being racist against Einstein. Personal review of resumes is notoriously rife with bias - you actually might want to consider that AI could be an improvement. The guy with the ethnic name might get a high AI score and actually get a second look. You don’t know the AI performs worse than humans in the things you care about. Be real: you have no information about that at all.
Believe it or not, we already know a lot of information about this issue. It's just that no one gives a shit.
https://www.washington.edu/news/2024/10/31/ai-bias-resume-screening-race-gender/
You clearly don't or you would have looked it up first.
Any comparison with how humans do with the same resumes in that article? Hm… nope.
The AI models are racist because they are trained on racist human generated decision sets. At least AI can be reprogrammed. Your own article concludes that this research should be used to improve AI.
Your own article concludes that this research should be used to improve AI.
What did I say above?
Believe it or not, we already know a lot of information about this issue. It’s just that no one gives a shit.
But I'm not sure why you think "less racist than a racist human but still racist" as the current status quo is acceptable.
Nice attempt to put those words in my mouth. Here’s what I think less racist than a human is: less racist than a human.
Either it's acceptable, which is why you're defending it, or it's not acceptable, in which case you have no reason to defend it.
I'm assuming you're not just saying things in order to practice your typing, so all I can think is that you think "less racist than a human but still racist" as the status quo is acceptable.
But if you don't think it's acceptable, please explain why you're defending it.
Yeah you just keep on making assumptions about what I’m saying. You won’t be happy until I’m wearing a KKK hood and waving a torch so you can shoot me.
Your hostile, continued pigeonholing and insistence on strictly defining the responses I’m allowed to give does not inspire me to continue further discussion with you. You are stuck on your narrative and will bend anything I say around it. Not interested.
Wait... so I shouldn't assume you're not saying things to practice your typing? That's what you're actually doing?
And, again, either it's acceptable, which is why you're defending it, or it is not acceptable, in which case you have no reason to defend it. The only third option I can think of is the typing practice thing. Which you said I shouldn't assume you're not doing.
So I guess enjoy the typing practice and sorry I assumed you were having a discussion.
There's no template that is looked for in my company's case. And it's not black and white, accept/reject, rather it's trained to score applicants on a predefined set of criteria set by my company. It's used as a tool to basically sort the resumes from strongest to weakest, most applicable to least. Depending on how many resumes are received, all of them might still be reviewed by a human. We don't and never have used a candidate's name at any point in the review process.
"Neurodivergent" had to have been a front runner for 2024 word of the year.
“Neurodivergent” had to have been a front runner for 2024 word of the year.
Are you suggesting that autism and ADHD are not real conditions?
Do you seriously believe that human review of a neurodivergent person’s strangely composed resume is going to be any better? Have you ever sat down with a stack of resumes in your life? Managers will toss them in seconds without even reading them in full - at least AI will do that.
I think you’re just using neurodivergence as a way to take your miserably uninformed assumptions about how AI application review works, and legitimize them as a discrimination issue.
You didn't answer my question.
ADHD and Autism are real conditions.
Now answer every point I made.
I seriously believe a human can view a non-standard resume and make a better judgment about it than a machine. And yes, I have sat down with a stack of resumes. I used to own my own company. That's exactly how I know someone with a resume that doesn't fit the traditional template an AI might care about, especially if they have a flair for design, would get my attention as a good candidate.
I also wouldn't care if their name was Shonda or Muhammad. AIs, on the other hand, reject people with "ethnic" names.
Happy now?
What is this "traditional template" you keep referring to?
Are you serious? You've never seen resume templates?
Just Google the phrase "resume template" to see lots of them.
What do you think AI is trained on when trained to look at resumes? How do you think it decides what is a good resume and a bad resume? Do you think it uses its reasoning abilities?
Also: "Thanks for answering my questions." You're welcome.
Not even sure why you'd even ask this as I never said any such thing. Of course ADHD and autism are real conditions.
I quoted why I asked it. It sure sounds like you're saying it's just a meaningless buzzword.
You love to assume.
Inferring is not the same as assuming.
HR systems are already doing this before AI.
And they trained the AI and now there's no chance a non-racist human will look at the resume with companies doing this before it gets rejected.
Yeah, people are just kneejerk "I hate AI", but this is one of the cases where it could actually be useful. HR doesn't have time to trawl through all of your previous employers, but AI does.
The people downvoting you refuse to recognize one simple fact: employers are absolutely drowning in unqualified applications for jobs. People completely ignore the requirements and apply anyway, or even install browser extensions that automatically fill out applications by the dozen. But oh! How dare the employer do anything but read all 600 applications and carefully read between the lines to consider applicants who have no experience but want a ‘career change!’ How dare they try to bin the worst 300 automatically!
In Japan, the culture around this is very different. People don’t apply for things unless they are highly qualified and meet the specific requirements. People tend to switch jobs less often and are more intentional about it. In the US it’s “I’m unemployed, time to spam.” This is despite the fact that for ever and ever, experts have been telling people “send fewer applications to more targeted jobs.” I’m sure everyone thinks they are doing this, but believe me, as a collective - no one else is.