this post was submitted on 16 Feb 2024
308 points (99.4% liked)

Technology

59374 readers
6873 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.

Our Rules

  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related content.
  3. Be excellent to each another!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed

Approved Bots

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
308
AI hiring tools may be filtering out the best job applicants (www.bbc.com)
submitted 9 months ago by [email protected] to c/[email protected]
64 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

AI hiring tools may be filtering out the best job applicants::As firms increasingly rely on artificial intelligence-driven hiring platforms, many highly qualified candidates are finding themselves on the cutting room floor.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 36 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago) (2 children)

LinkedIn used to say how many people applied to a job. Some jobs I would see said 1000s of applicants now they changed it and it says "over 100" that's an indicator that the job market is shit now. Companies have to use something to filter that many applications.

[–] [email protected] 13 points 9 months ago (1 children)

But sholdnt that product actually WORK? If its not working, then why pay for the product?

[–] [email protected] 13 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago)

From the perspective of the decision maker it does "work". It rejects a % of candidates in such a way they can pretend it's objective rather than random. Imho, just randomly selecting 100 out of 2000 for human review would actually be more fair and give better results.

[–] [email protected] -1 points 9 months ago

Eh… these numbers are often meaningless. I’ve heard directly from job posters that 99% of the applicants aren’t even within the location requirements (remote in the US being applied for by an Egyptian citizen for a non sponsor listing) and of the 1% remaining most are not qualified.

I was literally told “if your resume fits and you meet the other requirements, apply apply apply.”