Fed up of lazy AI use in recruitment

[DerelictWreck]

AIBU? Are others finding this?

We use an online recruitment system at work which is designed to reduce bias - we can only see how candidates have answered work based questions which are designed to assess their ability to do the job. We don't see any personal information or CVs.

As part of the process the candidates are told that use of AI will not help them and when they submit, they have to sign a declaration that it is their own work, not generative AI. Any AI work found will mean they are automatically dismissed from the process.

But over the last year this has so rapidly scaled that I'm now looking at over 50% of applications copying and pasting from AI chatbots. It's blatantly obvious, gives poor answers, massively slows down my recruitment processes, and is a complete waste of the candidates time as they get auto-rejected! I'm at the point where I'm also going to start blacklisting their names from future recruitment, and sharing said list with our sister companies (part of a large network).

I don't understand why they do it - using it to get ideas and editing it I get. But copying and pasting - how stupid do they think we are?!

I would find it annoying. I guess you have to filter them out now as part of the whole process, could you get an AI to filter out the AI ones? haha.

In my experience the more hoops there are in a recruitment system the more it weeds out time wasters.
No, it weeds out people who don't have time to jump through stupid pointless hoops, and who have enough self-respect and critical thinking to realise. I don't know what sector you are working in, but I hope it needs a high proportion of brainless automata as workers, as that's what you are seeking.

God I hate applications like the ones you use.It really puts me off applying for a job.
Whats wrong with submitting a cv these days as an initial first step?
Yes, it may only be 3-5 questions, but if every application form is similar it is so beyond tedious and time consuming with little return, that I can see why some people (although I wouldn’t) would try and use AI to ‘cheat’ the system.
I like to make the best impression so I don’t just rush together the 3/5 answers, I take my time to try and make a good impression etc. That gets beyond tedious when it’s the 7th application form of the evening, they’re all making you jump through different hoops, it’s never ever straightforward and 9 times out of 10 you never hear from the recruiters even with an automated rejection email.

People perhaps even suppose that an actual human won’t be reading their responses and it will be a computer deciding who gets through to an interview based on key buzz words etc.

I don't blame them tbh.

Companies want you to take hours completing job applications for a role in which they advertise 'competitive' salary (we all know what that means), using AI themselves to screen applications and don't even have the decency to get back to people.

This This This!

But that's not true in this case? And using it means you get rejected. So why waste your own time?

I know people want a pile on but to be clear

• we advertise salaries and all benefits
• the system we use gets very good feedback from candidates including those rejected
• rejected candidates are told within 2 weeks of application and can see their scores
• all those who interview get feedback
• it's all done by humans not computers
• it has huge positive EDI implications though I have made the same point about those who are time poor.

But my aibu wasn't 'do you like this system' it was 'why do people think they can cheat'

We use a similar system for blind recruitment, OP. I think it's fairer and more effective than CVs if used appropriately. The AI thing is a growing problem, but as a pp said, I think it's the poor attempts at using AI that you can spot. Those who are using it more effectively as less visible.

Arguably, I suppose, people are just using the resources available to them, and if they're able to manipulate AI to get a genuinely good answer, that shows a level of skill and awareness, I suppose. If they produce a pile of AI generated rubbish, I guess it will be scored accordingly.

I have no time for those who just want a quick, easy application process. They aren't the type of candidate that we're looking for. If people are really interested in the job, they'll put the time in. I can't be arsed sifting through piles of applications from people who can't be arsed to make any effort. If and when we find that we're unable to recruit high quality candidates, then we can review our stance, but for the time being, the ones who don't like our application process are welcome to go elsewhere.

Guessing that you probably use the same system as we do @DerelictWreck.

This. Applications are a fucking joke nowadays. All the jobs that pay a pittance are the worst for it too.

I am a manager and all I ask when I am recruiting is for:

• a CV
• a concise and clear supporting statement where the candidate should tell me about their experience, skills and why they decided to apply for the role.

That is really all I need to make my shortlist.

Further work-based questions should be kept for interviews.

When I am looking for a job I now discount any companies that ask me to fill in a convoluted application form and to answer several work-scenarios type questions or want me to describe how I would approach the first six months in the role. This is usually the type of company that has a ridiculous number of requirements in the JD and mediocre salaries...Basically the company is telling me that they are bureaucratic/paralysed by paperwork and are simply the type of organisation I don't want to work for.

So OP your current recruitment process just sounds like a waste of time for people and this is why you are getting so many application done by AI....

I have no time for those who just want a quick, easy application process. They aren't the type of candidate that we're looking for.
This is really interesting - what kind of organisation is it that believes an arduous application process is essential to attract the right candidates? (Genuinely curious)

Brava Startingagainandagain. An open-ended "go on, impress me" approach is much more revealing than a straight-jacketed, tick-box exercise.

Further work-based questions should be kept for interviews.
Yes, when you can put them on the spot and see how they react, see how their brains work.

@Startingagainandagain I personally think that’s the perfect first step in the recruitment process!
I work in HR/ in-house recruitment, and I am more than happy to scan through a pile of CV’s and covering letters, rather than making potential employees jump through ridiculous hoops.
Ive noticed it’s also usually the minimum wage type jobs that want this ridiculous application system or companies that think too much of themselves and have a poor ‘buzz word’ type culture.

The problem is is that it isn't just you. Your system might be pretty good but this won't be the only job they are applying for and they are probably demoralised with the whole system

People are angry op because those stupid situational questions are so pointless and time consuming. What is wrong with just sending a cv. You can see somebody's experience and judge if they may be suitable for an interview.

There's nothing wrong with it, but it's not as good for recruiting diversely. Too much unconscious bias, and assumes that because someone has done the job means they can do the job, which we know is often false!

The kind of organisation where genuine motivation and desire to do the work is required alongside any technical competencies.

To be clear, it isn't about making the process arduous or asking people to jump through hoops for the sake of it. It's about asking people to invest a bit of time and effort so that we can identify the candidates who are the most suited to the roles.

Honestly, if someone just wants an easy life, they would be far better off looking elsewhere. There are much easier ways of making money if people are that way inclined.

If someone wants an interesting and rewarding role in a values-driven organisation that proactively invests in its people, then they are usually prepared to put some work in. We don't have any trouble attracting candidates and we don't have trouble retaining them. We do put a lot of effort and resource into getting the right people, and we expect those who are interested to put in a bit of effort too.

We are decent employers and we treat our staff well, but if people are so uninterested in what we do that they can't even be bothered to engage in a fairly simple application process rather than a random, scattergun approach to sending out their CV, they won't be sufficiently interested to cope with the demands of the job. As I said, there are easier ways of making money.

They aren't pointless, though, if the questions are written effectively.

The quality of our hires has improved significantly since we started using the system. As has the diversity of the pool of shortlisted applicants.

Yeah, the 'AI is obvious' has the same flaw as the 'all cosmetic surgery is obvious' line.

You only notice the bad ones.

The good ones are indistinguishable from the real thing.

But that's my point. Using it is fine if you edit and develop your own thinking. Copying and pasting is lazy and a waste of time

And that's tough, I know - most of us have been there, and I get that applicants can start feeling very demoralised and frustrated after having to write lots of involved applications.

The brutal truth of the matter, though, is that employers don't design their recruitment and selection processes with the aim of making life easier for job applicants/improving morale amongst jobseekers. They are designed to enable the organisation to identify and hire the candidates most suited to the roles that are being advertised. And if this is the kind of process that works for them, they will keep doing it for as long as they are able to attract suitably qualified candidates. If their efforts to recruit aren't working, they will have to work a bit harder to make their processes simpler in order to cast the net a bit wider.

@MrsBennetsPoorNerves Thanks for the response, that is interesting.

I’ve used those systems a couple of times as an applicant. They are very time consuming and so I’d have to be serious about the job to bother. In my experience, I got through to interview stage with the first (but didn’t get the job). Second one, I wasn’t shortlisted for interview but they sent me my marks as feedback, plotted on some kind of diagram so I could benchmark myself. That was actually really helpful.

I start a new job next week. Good old fashioned CV and covering letter and a couple of interviews.

When you get 100s of applications for one role then anything that can help you sift and at least long list is cost, resource and time effective

That's why.