It is an interesting topic but shallow coverage.
- Video is not AI.
- Filtering is not AI.
- Workers saying they care is not action.
Come on, reporters, do your job and tell us something accurate and not obvious.
Um, I’d hate to be the one to break it to 'em: employers were some of the first to use algorithmic filtration (fuck “AI” marketing bs) like that, and they’ve been doing so since the 90s. 🫡
Plans?! As if they haven’t already been doing this?!
Stop wasting time & money and syndicate.
🖕Monopsonies.My team would literally get 1000s of applications a month. 95% were AI submitted / created. We couldn’t keep up. We implemented an agent to sift through the shit and present us with legit candidates.
Of those, we got between 1 and 2 interviews a month after reviewing what was left over from the above. Of those, over an 18 month period, we offered zero candidates a position.
Of that, we would pass candidates on to a video screening that we would review. Most used AI interview tools to answer our screening questions.
Of those 200 or so, we interviewed 24-32 candidates directly. We recommended 3 to leadership for hire.
This is a double edged sword.
Require resumes and applications to be submitted on paper, either in person or by mail.
Suddenly, the thousands of frivolous applications will vanish, and only a few serious ones will remain.
Seriously, the solution to this entire fucking problem is paper.
Reconsider your choices in life
And me without my tiny violin.
