> 4,197,168 job applications submitted by 3,372,132 applicants to 1,746 positions.
So roughly 2000 applicants per position which there may be 1-3 of available? And that's across multiple industries.
The rest of the article doesn't say much about how "AI" is used. Just looks like a score is taken from how well they do in the "games" which needs to meet a certain threshold to put the candidate as recommended.
> When people applied for jobs at these companies, they were directed to pymetrics' machine learning platform to play assessment games. The platform's algorithm measures gameplay performance and recommends on average 58.2 percent of applicants per position. Employers decide who to interview, typically rejecting candidates who were not recommended by the hiring platform.
> "We find substantial evidence of racial disparities in AI-based candidate screening," the researchers said.
> 4,197,168 job applications submitted by 3,372,132 applicants to 1,746 positions.
So roughly 2000 applicants per position which there may be 1-3 of available? And that's across multiple industries.
The rest of the article doesn't say much about how "AI" is used. Just looks like a score is taken from how well they do in the "games" which needs to meet a certain threshold to put the candidate as recommended.
> When people applied for jobs at these companies, they were directed to pymetrics' machine learning platform to play assessment games. The platform's algorithm measures gameplay performance and recommends on average 58.2 percent of applicants per position. Employers decide who to interview, typically rejecting candidates who were not recommended by the hiring platform.
> "We find substantial evidence of racial disparities in AI-based candidate screening," the researchers said.
Hmm
[dupe] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48649673