“Sifting through resumés all day is like a horrible experience and it’s not very reliable.”
Ah yes, and applying for jobs is just so easy and not at all disproportionately more degrading than hiring. /s
this post was submitted on 10 Mar 2025
47 points (96.1% liked)
Technology
65389 readers
4271 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related content.
- Be excellent to each other!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, this includes using AI responses and summaries. To ask if your bot can be added please contact a mod.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
- Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.
Approved Bots
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
HireVue is a thing. I just took one being a software engineer interviewing
My company sometimes uses that too. It has your general keyword filtering on resumes, with sensitivity adjustments.
It also has a tool to ask questions, then candidates video record themselves responding (as many retakes as they want) and the hiring manager can review their video so they aren't bound by a mutual schedule. No AI element to that (yet) that I'm aware of, but could see the potential to screen the videos through an AI filter.
I don't like the video screening, personally. Neither as an applicant nor as a hiring manager. I've only had to use it once as hiring manager where the narrowed down by resume pool of candidates was still 70 people for only one position. I used the damn tool because I didn't see any other way to filter it down to a number I could conceivably interview live on zoom.
If one is down to 3-5 candidates, AI tools of any sort are inappropriate. As with all things AI, it's a tool and not an excuse to not do the job.
I didn't see any other way to filter it down to a number I could conceivably interview live on zoom.
You can get help from other people. If you're so cool you have 70 relevant resumes for one position, you can afford 70 human-hours, internally or even externally.
I did not have as many times as I wanted. I had one chance per question, no re takes. What's fucking hilarious is my reference was more important than the fucking screener. I got fired by a company for budget concerns supposedly but not on bad terms and this company contracts with them and apparently the hiring manager called my former engineering manager and I got a good word so to the top I went. Fucking hate the stain of AI.
Yes, obviously. What a ridiculous question when computers have been making hiring decisions since the late 1990s.
The hell are you talking about
In the US, at least, nearly all corporations digitized around the late nineties while buying into personality test nonsense.
At this time the screening was more simple than it was today, keyword searches and yes/no personality decisions that eliminated over 90% of applicants.
Now with LLMs they can eliminate nearly all applicants, giving them more legal justification to request visas or outsource.