Over 3,000 applicants have applied for a single data science vacancy at a US health tech company so far this year, highlighting the competitive job market. To assess top candidates, the company administered a lengthy and challenging task assessment. However, a recruiter at the company, who requested anonymity, believes that some applicants may have used artificial intelligence (AI) to solve the problem. They cite instances of unusual wording, disclosure of AI use, and inability to answer questions about the task during subsequent interviews.
The recruiter expressed frustration at the time wasted by both the applicants and the company. The tech industry is experiencing a surge in applications due to recent layoffs and the growing adoption of generative AI tools that allow for bulk applications. This influx of candidates is overwhelming recruiters and hiring managers.
Recruiters are concerned about the potential for biased decision-making by AI systems, especially considering the history of bias in automated resume screening tools. They emphasize the need to understand the criteria used by AI and to incorporate nuance into the hiring process. Not all qualified applicants fit perfectly into a role, and generative AI tools may not fully capture the complexities of human experience.
Despite the concerns, generative AI tools are becoming more prevalent for both recruiters and job seekers. LinkedIn and Indeed have introduced AI chatbots and resume optimization tools. LinkedIn’s AI sourcing tool allows recruiters to search for candidates based on specific criteria and generate outreach messages, which have a 40% higher acceptance rate than recruiter-written messages.
However, some recruiters are hesitant to rely solely on AI. One recruiter from a health tech company indicated that they rarely post jobs on LinkedIn because the Easy Apply feature generates too many unqualified candidates. They prefer to focus on inbound candidates and have little need for external sourcing. Another recruiter acknowledged the limitations of LinkedIn’s AI messaging tool, preferring to personalize outreach.
LinkedIn emphasizes the representativeness of candidate profiles displayed by its AI, considering factors such as gender and industry relevance. Indeed also has measures in place to evaluate the fairness of its AI systems and welcomes feedback for improvement. However, bias remains a concern, especially for less active profiles or individuals who have taken time away from the workforce.
Some HR professionals are wary of AI tools due to potential risks and data safety issues. They prefer to manually review resumes and screen candidates over the phone. Others remain optimistic about the potential of AI but acknowledge its limitations. AI cannot fully automate the hiring process, and human judgment is still essential.
Krysten Copeland, founder of a PR firm, has experienced challenges with LinkedIn’s candidate recommendations. She suspects that one highly recommended candidate lied about their work experience. LinkedIn’s verification feature and professional connections can help build trust, but Copeland believes there is a disconnect in the online job hunt.
Despite the challenges, AI is expected to continue impacting the recruitment process. Recruiters are navigating the evolving landscape, balancing the benefits and limitations of AI while adapting to the changing needs of job seekers.
