Hacker News Reader

Comment by gumballindie | Hacker News Reader

But this use case shows that the rate of success is low when using ai. So if anything it would indicate that using ai for job applications is not a good idea. If i see ai spam in a job applicant’s email i am rejecting them instantly.

View on HN

The rate of success is tremendously high when viewed as a return on time invested compared to the 'normal' method.

I'm not sure about that, it probably depends on the position. In my case, If I send out 10 resumes, I get ignored by 3 potential employers, 3 will politely write back that "after careful review...", but 4 will invite me for the interview and at least one make an offer (usually more than one). So at least in my case, using "AI" (or: automatically generated resumes) is actually more of a risk than advantage.

I mean how long does it take to press a button on job ads that you asses as matching your profile? Few seconds at most?

How many of those 20 interviews do you suppose were at great places where the person would enjoy working? They are evidently the places with the worst resume screening (or, alternatively, the most desperate hiring managers). Maybe there’s a reason they’ll interview anybody who tosses in a crappy AI-generated resume.

you're assuming that the Mk 1 Eyeball does a better job of sorting through candidates than "crappy AI" resume.

And history has clearly proved that's just not the case.

Most resumes follow a template and are scanned for keywords and action-phrases. ATS software isn't smarter than that, outside of maybe making some guesses about you based on time worked at each job or if you're lacking attention to detail by not ending each bulletpoint with a period.

When I got my current job, I applied to only that one. It probably took less than an hour to put everything together and email the hiring manager.

The time before that, I think I applied to three places and got two offers.

So the "normal" approach has been quite good for me for the last seven years. My success rate is orders of magnitude larger than 20/5000.

Lucky you. I know someone that has been trying very hard to get employed again but is now for two years without a single positive response. Sure they're doing 'something wrong', no doubt or their resume might be off-putting but your experience isn't necessarily the experience that everybody else has.

No, which is why I said "for me" in my last line there.

These things change by location, timing and profession to a degree that I don't think any personal stories should carry much weight on either side.

When’s the last time you had to do it. I never had issues either… until I was laid off in late 2022.

mid 2022

I did it last year. Nothing seemed any different than any other year.

anecdotes aren't data, and the market has shifted a lot since 2020.

remote is here to stay, and AI will be eating a lot of jobs.

call my bluff: throw out 3 resumes this week and see what sticks. How many come with the same level of salary -- it's dropping, aggressively, across the market -- or more?

> anecdotes aren't data

I'm well aware, but the article we're responding to is an anecdote as well.

> remote is here to stay

thankfully, it's been great for me

> call my bluff: throw out 3 resumes this week and see what sticks. How many come with the same level of salary -- it's dropping, aggressively, across the market -- or more?

I don't see the need to do this, I'm happy at my job and don't even know who you are. You're probably right, why would I waste my time?

AI is just the new spam.

You don't see AI spam. All I have to add to the AI prompt is "use the style of Matt Levine", "patio11", "Hemmingway", "a 10 year old on crack" or "Donald Trump" and the letter looks nothing like what you think AI writing looks like.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com