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?!

@MrsBennetsPoorNerves you say you aren't saying that to be disrespectful. But it is disrespectful. And seeing as you admit that you aren't interested in dealing with your candidates with humanity, so you can't complain that they try and game your system. It's an old story : treat others how you want to be treated yourself.

I spent some time this week interviewing students about their use of AI this week. I am sorry to say they are going to take it to another level for you. They create the stuff through AI and then put it through another AI to disguise that it's AI. You're going to end up employing the person who is best at AI.

And you say the AI is "awful" but I have tested a lot of paid-for and corporate aimed AI . If you know how to use it effectively, how to use the prompts. it's really not. It's amazing.

Sometimes it’s not “can’t be arsed” but “got a job/kids/family”, and haven’t got the time for this approach across multiple applications. Which is required to give a reasonable chance of success. No one applies for just one vacancy. Or are perfectly employable, professional, qualified people with these constraints on their personal time “not really what we’re looking for”?
I am the type of person who wouldn’t use AI and would want to take the time to answer correctly. I just don’t have lots of time. I’m not the only one.

@MrsBennetsPoorNerves Has it had a measurable effect on diversity in your organisation? If it has, does it vary in how much it helps different marginalised groups?

We'll have to agree to disagree re "can't be arsed". We have candidates who are juggling all sorts of responsibilities who somehow manage to make time to complete the process. And I know from my own experience that, no matter how busy I might be, if I am really interested in a job, I will somehow make the time.

FWIW I am not making any claims about our organisation being special, and I'm quite sure that we're not unique. I mentioned our reputation as an employer only in response to another poster's question. I am not speaking from the perspective of an HR department either. I'm simply saying that our current process is working for us more effectively than the traditional CV approach ever did, and we do not have trouble attracting high quality applicants - we can speculate about the reasons for this, but it doesn't really matter. We monitor trends regularly, and collect feedback from applicants on the process. If we find that it isn't working for us at any stage, then we will obviously review it then, but with all due respect, we're not going to take random warnings from unknown people on the Internet more seriously than the extensive data that we collect ourselves to monitor how our processes are performing for our organisation. I understand, of course, that other employers will be operating in different contexts, and they may choose to organise their own processes differently. Fair enough.

As I've said already, I understand that some applicants don't want to engage in lengthy application processes. That's fine, they don't have to. As you say, there are plenty of employers who will strive to make the process quick and easy, so they can apply to those instead. Different approaches will suit different people.

I haven't said at all that we aren't interested in dealing with candidates with humanity, and this is not the case. We actually bend over backwards to treat candidates with respect and consideration if they take the time to apply, and we get fabulous feedback on the process, even from unsuccessful applicants.

It isn't disrespectful to point out that the way our recruitment process is organised is based on what works for us as an organisation rather than on what prospective candidates might prefer. As an applicant, you might want an easy, quick process, and obviously I respect your right to walk away/ take your labour elsewhere, but it certainly doesn't give you the right to tell us how we should run our recruitment process. That's for us to determine.

As for the quality of the AI, I'm talking about the stuff that is obviously identifiable as AI. I've already said above that, if candidates are using AI intelligently and effectively to produce consistently high quality answers, then I think they're worthy of an interview anyway. If AI is their only strength, we'll soon weed them out through the rest of the process.

We're approaching the end of our second year of the trial, and we're still monitoring this/ trying to dig further into the data. We have seen a very clear increase in ethnic diversity - both in the overall number of applications received from diverse ethnic groups as well as actual hires. A small but significant increase in the diversity of ages, at both ends of the age spectrum. No change with regard to disability, sex or sexuality.

The data on socio-economic background/"class" is a bit harder to interpret, as the measures are far from perfect and not always consistent. From the stats that we've had so far, it looks like there may be a small positive effect, but it isn't conclusive. Certainly no evidence of a negative impact though.

I've been that busy person with demanding job/ young dc/caring responsibilities/domestic responsibilities etc etc. I get how hard it is to find the time to complete multiple applications that are this demanding. I think people do find time if they really want to, though.

I also think the scattergun approach to applications is very inefficient. People might find that they would have to submit fewer applications overall if they focused on quality, not quantity.

“We'll have to agree to disagree re "can't be arsed". We have candidates who are juggling all sorts of responsibilities who somehow manage to make time to complete the process. And I know from my own experience that, no matter how busy I might be, if I am really interested in a job, I will somehow make the time.”

The fact you’ve used the word ‘juggling’ tells me you may want to add some gender coding software to your AI checker and check your own bias. Because I’m sure you’ll come back to state you didn’t intend to imply, as is usually the case with ‘juggling’, that you mean women.

Agreed, however, it’s not possible to take a scattergun approach with senior posts requiring multiple questions, setting up an account and password to access your application or apply for future positions etc. I would also make the time but it’s off putting. I’d be interested to know how candidates where English is a second language or with SEN score unless it’s been covered already, sorry if so.

Actually, you're wrong. In my immediate team, I happen to have more men that are "juggling" complex responsibilities than women right now. Though of course, I've done my fair share of juggling over the years as well.

One of those men was recruited through the new system - he works part time while caring for his disabled wife, looking after young dc and keeping his home running. His life is more complicated than most, but he managed to go through the process.

I'm not really sure what you're on about with regards to "my AI checker", as I've already said that we don't use AI in recruitment. As for checking my own bias, I don't think that's actually relevant in this particular situation, but of course I have unconscious bias, like everyone else... the whole point of blind recruitment is to try and reduce the impact of that.

OMG. Back in the sixties when I was young I just had to dress up smart and answer job ads by going in person. I would find out immediately if I had the job or not. I was even offered an apprenticeship that way.

Then I went to Canada and they wanted five years experience even for a job washing floors. I went for a minimum wage job that required zero intellect and HR interviewed 100 applicants for it

I'm not sure I've understood this post.

Completely agree that it isn't possible to do a scattergun approach for senior roles, but surely all applications for senior roles require a significant amount of time, regardless of the nature of the application process? Even if it's just a CV and covering letter, they would still need to be carefully tailored for the role in order to have a chance of getting taken seriously, so that isn't necessarily any quicker. I think it's just a fact that applying for senior positions is hugely time consuming.

And of course, I understand that it's off-putting. I've been there, and I understand that it can be soul destroying to have to invest so much time in something that might all come to nothing. The worst ones that I had to do were the ones where they asked me to record bloody videos of myself as part of the application process. Sometimes I would decide that I didn't want it enough to bother. However, I recognised that it's the employer's prerogative to set whatever process they want, provided that they stay within the law, and that, actually, if I didn't want the job enough to find the time to do what they were asking, then I probably wasn't the best person for the job in any case.

Re English language...we don't collect data on that specifically as far as I know. Anecdotally, we do have quite a few non-native English speakers amongst our recent recruits, but they are all very proficient in English and need to be in order to fulfil the role effectively.

Re SEN - don't think we have looked at this specifically but data on specific learning differences, neurodiversity etc will be included within the disability stats. Haven't drilled into the detail so don't really know, but there hasn't been much impact on the aggregated disability stats in either direction. To be fair, the organisation was already quite proactive around being inclusive towards workers with disabilities before we started trialling the new system.

@MrsBennetsPoorNerves in which case I am glad to be wrong. I will definitely do some reading around this. I’m very surprised that it’s increased the number of ethnic minority applicants. It will be interesting to see how it evolves, especially in global companies with 100,000+ employees or with experience hires, who I assume would be less likely to engage with something like this.

We're still in the trial phase at the moment, so still collecting and analysing the data, but it certainly looks promising so far. The increase in applicants from ethnic minority backgrounds was somewhat unexpected, and we haven't yet ruled out the possibility that something else could be driving that, but if it is, we haven't been able to identify what!

It would also be interesting to know what drives the people who do or do not fill out lengthy applications. In my case, because of pure luck early on, I now only have big names on my CV, so it is kind of lazy. I just don’t fill them out because I don’t need to.

Yes, I think I was carried by some "big names" on my CV early in my career, but I found that I had to start putting in a lot more time as I began applying for more senior roles. I suspect it varies massively depending on the sector...it would be inconceivable in my sector to walk into a professional level job without having put a fair bit of effort into the initial application!

However, if you can progress in your sector without any of that hassle, I can only say "crack on"! If you're happy with the jobs that you're doing, then your approach is obviously working for you!

I'm a lazy bugger, so if I could find the type of job that I wanted in the sector where I wanted to work, without having to put all of that effort in, then of course I would! Not really an option for the types of role that I tend to go for though!

I think this is a really good point. Applications are becoming ridiculous with each company having their own system. Personally an initial application shouldn't be taking anyone more than half an hour.

DH has come across some really challenging views/cuts from agencies recently. People less than half his age....... so he is late 50's, very senior, high level experience, massive projects, high salary etc etc.

He is being sifted out, age, of course, but also because he doesn't have a university degree or an MBA. No sanity check of his experience, just a tick box excercise. It's really lazy.

You have actually no idea whether it's AI generated or not. It's well known that none of the current AI content detectors are infaillible.

I guess that's what happens when recruiting managers feel so superior to their candidates.

Are some of the applications those people are making to evidence job search to the DWP? No wish for the job concerned, just making sure they don't get sanctioned by the DWP.

I've said multiple times that I'm not using an AI detector. It's very obvious when it's been cut and pasted as I can see the very similar language/formatting/ideas on multiple applications

The whole seems to be a complete fucking mess.

DS graduated 2 years ago and just can't get a job. He has applied to so many, all on line and he just never hears back at all. I know that he is not alone.

Then today I read in the paper that 'frustrated' businesses can't find anyone to employ and want to look abroad for workers.

Something is not right

This is exactly the type of issue that blind recruitment systems are attempting to tackle.

That's why it's so easy to spot AI as we put the questions through AI tools to check what answers are generated.
But that means you're using AI.

The poster didn't say it was unreasonable in the post you quoted though, you had a go at her for comprehension problems then conceded that she was right.

I get that you love your recruitment system, it leaps out of your (many) posts, but you're not taking on board the feedback from humans (human resources... finite non-renewable human resources) that this isn't working for them. And OP has the same problem. You're all too busy getting defensive to examine why your resources are upset that you're treating them like robots then wondering why they use robotic application systems.

Recruitment is a two way street. You're asking someone to commit a large portion of their life to the furtherment of your own corporate goals. They should be treated accordingly. I filter out companies with shit application processes because I don't want to work for people who value mindless, pointless bureaucracy. If your company values include those things, then I'm sure you're getting the right people with this approach.

And OP feedback from candidates on the system should be weighed against the fact they're being polite so they don't burn bridges in the future, if it's a professional role/environment. Few people are stupid enough to tell HR what they really think about anything they don't like, whether they got the job or not. And you're not improving EDI if you're making the application process completely inaccessible to people with ADHD by making it too ridiculous and pointless, those of us with ADHD have no truck with such things.

Thank god I work in an environment where employees are valued and listened to and where they are very open to ideas on simplifying everything and putting humans at the heart of all we do. I like our HR lady a lot, but I like her even more after reading this thread's HR "perspectives".