Forum: Author Hangout

The problem is that it's cheaters chasing cheaters. At most mid-sized and companies (and a growing number of small businesses), software (increasingly LLMs) 'read' the resumes first. Anything that doesn't match an ever-growing list of criteria (much of which has nothing to do with the ostensible job requirements) is tossed.

Even if it worked, all it would do is get them to an interview. Unless the interviewer is also an LLM, the cheating buys them very little.

The problem is that the hiring process is designed to prevent people from getting to interviews if 'the system' doesn't like them, regardless of whether the hiring manager would like them.

Even if it worked, all it would do is get them to an interview.

That's a biggie. That's what a resume is supposed to do. Get the interview.

That's a biggie. That's what a resume is supposed to do. Get the interview.

Exactly. If you can get there, you have a chance to convince the interviewer; if you can't get there, you have zero chance.

This just replaced the HR screen with an LLM screen. From an IT executive's view (i.e., mine), the two had/have equal value.

I always demanded 100% of the résumés received. Of course, I wasn't receiving 1000 of them, and times have changed.

I've been on the other hand of it, though not firsthand.

While not the hiring manager, I reviewed the posted job requirements for a job on my team. The requirements were impossible to meet (8 years of experience with a product that was 4 years old, for instance).

The hiring manager was not allowed to change the requirements. They were not allowed to receive all of the resumes. HR knew better. If 4 years was good, surely 8 would be better, right?

Likely needless to say, the manager was not pleased, but it wound up coming down to 'keep complaining and get downrated yourself, or suck it up and interview the candidates you get, even if you know beforehand all of them must necessarily be lying in order for their resumes to get to you.'

He wound up hiring someone good, but that person at least had the guts to start the interview by saying, 'I don't have the experience required, but no one does, so I figured I would give it a shot anyway.'

Decent job, but HR was not decent at that point in things.

That was actually my point, sort of. One can perhaps 'cheat' an LLM screen, but an LLM screen is also arguably 'cheating.'

One can't cheat the interview by treating the interviewer like they're an LLM (unless the company is crazy enough to actually let an LLM making hiring decisions).

So the 'cheating' gets them very little, if it works, and it will only work if the screener is an LLM. It's no more effective than writing a lying resume overstating one's experience.

and not the HR drone who generally is just a string matching automaton

When I was in IT at a Fortune 50 company, we didn't use our HR to screen resumes. We outsourced it to consulting companies who understood the technology.

Networking (aka talking to a human) is always the best way, as long as you can make it happen without annoying them.