this post was submitted on 04 May 2024
795 points (97.4% liked)

memes

10184 readers
2346 users here now

Community rules

1. Be civilNo trolling, bigotry or other insulting / annoying behaviour

2. No politicsThis is non-politics community. For political memes please go to !politicalmemes@lemmy.world

3. No recent repostsCheck for reposts when posting a meme, you can only repost after 1 month

4. No botsNo bots without the express approval of the mods or the admins

5. No Spam/AdsNo advertisements or spam. This is an instance rule and the only way to live.

Sister communities

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] partial_accumen@lemmy.world 23 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago)

Unfortunately this computer filtering step tends to be highly inaccurate and game-able, but I’m not sure what to propose instead.

Game-able, as in, entering specific answers (even if they are inaccurate) gets you through the computer and put in front of a human? Working as intended.

Ever since the social contract was broken with employers where they'd give you a job for decades if you stayed there, there's been an ongoing "arms race" of how job applicants can get noticed, and how employers can get usable candidates out of the massive tidal waves of applicants they get. The first step computer filter doesn't have to be perfect, if it even filters out 80% of the candidate that don't meet basic criteria, leaving only 20% for humans to review that is massively better (to employers) than requiring humans to look at all 100% of applicants.

So yes, its game-able to get through the computer filter, but if you still don't match the basic criteria, you'll be eliminated by the human reviewers anyway. The difference is only very small number of candidates will figure out the game-able answers to get through even if they aren't supposed to. This is...until the next round of the arms race where nearly all candidates are getting through. That hasn't happened yet.