A business consultant is raising alarms about AI-conducted job interviews after he says a tech company’s evaluation of him drew some concerning conclusions, including criticizing his “habitual” use of Google’s Chrome internet browser.
As some companies outsource job interviews to artificial intelligence, rejected candidates can be left wondering what went wrong.
After not hearing back about a job he applied for in Madrid with marketing company Anteriad, Daniel Alvarez, who is based in Spain, decided to find out exactly how the AI judged him.
He obtained a copy of the AI-generated evaluation from Anteriad under the European Union’s General Data Protection Regulation. The company had used a third-party firm called ChattyHiring to conduct the screening interview.
Alvarez, who is not Canadian but lived in Toronto for much of last year, shared the full evaluation and transcript with CBC News. He said he was not impressed by what he found, and doesn’t feel companies should use AI interviews in the hiring process.
“It’s not a human-to-human interaction when you have, for example, language repair… I can say something, and depending on your face, I can immediately rephrase it," he said.
“That’s gone in this kind of interaction.”
Language prediction models are bad at making decisions, who knew
In EU this would be classified as a high risk use case under the AI act and he could sue the shit out of them.
AI interviews reduce HR workload
Not if they put forward idiots based on hallucinated questions.
Guys, it looks like our continuous shitting on Chrome has made LLMs conclude its users are not great at changing their ways /s
You put an /s there but I can think of no other explanation for why an LLM might do this
I hate chrome and refuse to use it as a browser, but I won’t deny their dev tools are pretty good. I can get the job done in Safari and Firefox, but chrome set the standard that they are aspiring to (and maybe have caught, idk, I refuse to use it). I wouldn’t dock anyone interview points for using it — as long as their attitude toward other browsers isn’t “fuck people who use those, they are 6% of the market” (or whatever the right number is, I made that shit up).
I never understood this need to filter out applicants who have other options.
If I had three potential employers to interview with and one of them pulled this, I’d put them on hold and see if the others pan out.
That’s a nice idea. In reality most people have to take whatever they can get, and all 3 are using AI screening, because all the applicants are using AI submissions to spam the entire job market with their lazy applications.
Sure.
Most people in entry level do.
That’s not my point.
People not in entry level have other options, and they are discouraged by this.
I didn’t say anything about entry level…
Classic example of a buyer’s market.
Knew a guy who worked for Goldman Sachs in London pre-2008. One of their interview tests was to ask the candidate to stand on a chair with one leg in the air, and hold the pose. Will doing this absurdity get you the job? Choose wisely…
When you have people lining up down the street for one job, you can make people bark like a dog or cluck like a chicken, knowing they’ll never know if agreeing to debase themselves is a pass or fail.
The interviewer probably doesn’t even know until they spin the (mental) wheel. The humiliation/inconsequentiality is the point.
LLMs need to have the same warnings attached as the old psychic hotlines: “Must be 18. For entertainment only.”
That being said, I’m not sure that this is any more ridiculous than an ad asking for ten years’ experience with a piece of software that’s only existed for three. HR departments have never had much contact with reality.
What choice do we have?
We use Chrome in any number of different costumes, or we tiptoe sites that deliberately break when using Firefox.
Websites that break in Firefox are websites that should not be used.
If you have are using an Android phone, none at all.
