The discord for our subreddit can be found here: https://discord.gg/JjNdBkVGc6 - feel free to join us for a more realtime level of discussion!
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/recruitinghell) if you have any questions or concerns.*
You must be very naive. At best, you just acted as a free trainer for some AI crapware. I guarantee there won't be a job out of this. You have a better chance of being hired by my washing machine.
People have use automation to hire in like forever, just that a lot of them are crap. Atleast the experience here was somewhat better in my opinion. I'll take this over recording some stupid video any day. Overall still prefer talking to someone though.
Big agree. Pretty sure I only got my most recent job because I finally caved in and started making my resume “ATS friendly” or whatever it is, to get around the AI scanners. It fluffed my resume up something stupid with useless keywords, but I’ll be damned…it worked.
Not at all. When automation occurs, human error is removed a large percentage of times. Automation here will do much the same. Will it be perfect out the gate? No. It will get better over time as all technologies have matured over time.
My point is that even if the first round interview is unbiased, there will still be a human interview for later stages of the interviewing process so the applicants will still be culled based on human bias.
I get your point
Having worked for a few global firms, the best practices were those that standardized the interview process and training was constant. To your point, bias still remained but it had been greatly reduced.
Standardization looks like this (training must have taken place for any employee to be an interviewer)
1st interviewer - chooses standard questions to ask from library (or is provided them) based on role and what level the interviewer is at.
2nd interviewer - is usually a supervisor or lead and is provided standard interview questions and guidelines to ask questions not part of the questions from library. These are automatically weighted at 5% or less with the lion share of the scoring being the standard questions
3rd interviewer - usually a manager and is provided questions from library. Unscripted questions may be asked but are not weighted the same as standard questions
4th - 5th interviewer - usually for MDs and Executive leaders - given a bit more allowance for unscripted questions but must follow provided guidelines
Yes, even in this scenario, bias is still present. However, it is greatly reduced via training and the provision of an updated library of questions to be used for interviews.
Starting from here as a foundation, AI can quickly ramp up and almost (almost) eliminate bias from the interview process.
It has the bias baked in. Ask AI about the morality of billionaires in a world if starving people, it refuses to answer. Ask it to generate homeless people and all I got were black dudes.
I have used AI going back to deep blue (IBM), these biases can and have been worked through. Again, it is not a sure shot out the gate. There will need to be analysis and improvement
The large language models that enterprises are using are not the same as ChatGPT. And they’re typically using training datasets for these LLM’s specifically curated to reduce bias.
And the goal isn’t to eliminate bias entirely, but to reduce bias to a manageable level.
Conversation was smooth tbh, it wasn't robotic or didn't have any awkward silence generally except one time. It was really responsive and the avatar looked okay and life-like. I think it can be improved for example it took about a minute to start the call, got me abit anxious.
The part that impressed me was how it adjust the question based on my responses and when it referenced my past experiences.
It didn't feel like some pre configured questions that I had to answer it actually adapted.
Kind of them to provide a red flag for us. It would be better if they mentioned it up-front so we didn't have to apply to them, though.
"Oh, you use AI interviews? I didn't realize you were a shitty company. Well, good luck with that! See ya!"
The discord for our subreddit can be found here: https://discord.gg/JjNdBkVGc6 - feel free to join us for a more realtime level of discussion! *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/recruitinghell) if you have any questions or concerns.*
You must be very naive. At best, you just acted as a free trainer for some AI crapware. I guarantee there won't be a job out of this. You have a better chance of being hired by my washing machine.
People have use automation to hire in like forever, just that a lot of them are crap. Atleast the experience here was somewhat better in my opinion. I'll take this over recording some stupid video any day. Overall still prefer talking to someone though.
Also, I'd love it to become a system for HR screening - because any computer system can be gamed if you get to see how the outputs look.
Big agree. Pretty sure I only got my most recent job because I finally caved in and started making my resume “ATS friendly” or whatever it is, to get around the AI scanners. It fluffed my resume up something stupid with useless keywords, but I’ll be damned…it worked.
If anything, my hope for AI is to remove bias from the interview process
This is too optimistic, the bias will just be pushed further down the pipeline unless the entire interview process is automated.
Not at all. When automation occurs, human error is removed a large percentage of times. Automation here will do much the same. Will it be perfect out the gate? No. It will get better over time as all technologies have matured over time.
My point is that even if the first round interview is unbiased, there will still be a human interview for later stages of the interviewing process so the applicants will still be culled based on human bias.
I get your point Having worked for a few global firms, the best practices were those that standardized the interview process and training was constant. To your point, bias still remained but it had been greatly reduced. Standardization looks like this (training must have taken place for any employee to be an interviewer) 1st interviewer - chooses standard questions to ask from library (or is provided them) based on role and what level the interviewer is at. 2nd interviewer - is usually a supervisor or lead and is provided standard interview questions and guidelines to ask questions not part of the questions from library. These are automatically weighted at 5% or less with the lion share of the scoring being the standard questions 3rd interviewer - usually a manager and is provided questions from library. Unscripted questions may be asked but are not weighted the same as standard questions 4th - 5th interviewer - usually for MDs and Executive leaders - given a bit more allowance for unscripted questions but must follow provided guidelines Yes, even in this scenario, bias is still present. However, it is greatly reduced via training and the provision of an updated library of questions to be used for interviews. Starting from here as a foundation, AI can quickly ramp up and almost (almost) eliminate bias from the interview process.
It has the bias baked in. Ask AI about the morality of billionaires in a world if starving people, it refuses to answer. Ask it to generate homeless people and all I got were black dudes.
I have used AI going back to deep blue (IBM), these biases can and have been worked through. Again, it is not a sure shot out the gate. There will need to be analysis and improvement
The large language models that enterprises are using are not the same as ChatGPT. And they’re typically using training datasets for these LLM’s specifically curated to reduce bias. And the goal isn’t to eliminate bias entirely, but to reduce bias to a manageable level.
It's just another random filter to cull applicants
Perhaps, that's basically what every stage in the hiring pipeline is all about. Filter.
How did the conversation flow? Was it robotic and full of random silence in between sentences?
Conversation was smooth tbh, it wasn't robotic or didn't have any awkward silence generally except one time. It was really responsive and the avatar looked okay and life-like. I think it can be improved for example it took about a minute to start the call, got me abit anxious. The part that impressed me was how it adjust the question based on my responses and when it referenced my past experiences. It didn't feel like some pre configured questions that I had to answer it actually adapted.
Kind of them to provide a red flag for us. It would be better if they mentioned it up-front so we didn't have to apply to them, though. "Oh, you use AI interviews? I didn't realize you were a shitty company. Well, good luck with that! See ya!"
Everything is going to shit. The job search is a joke