Yeah, I smell a lot of BS in this though not to blame the author of course. I enjoy the article very much. I just believe that there’s a lot of outcomes in recruiting with AI that don’t have specifics that we need to review and know about before we are impressed with statistics like this. The reason why this doesn’t really make sense to me and I called BS on it, is because candidates engaged with automated interactive voice response systems controlled by AI have universally poopooed their interactions with IVR chatbots, just don’t feel a connection with the company because of the impersonal AI chatbot. They don’t always necessarily report a positive experience with the brand at all- many candidates have reported that they don’t feel important to the company at all!! They just put up with it because they need . And that shouldn’t surprise anyone. So this flies in the face of that basic knowledge. I’d have to check the specifics of the social science techniques behind the metrics to actually know if this was an effective study. Moreover, it doesn’t really say what level of hires these are that they’re interviewing for through the AI voice response system, but I’m certain they’re lower level probably the lowest level of hires companies can make. However, I would advocate that even the “lowest level” of hires deserves the best candidate experience with more human interaction! I’m all for AI automating the areas in recruitment that are BRAINLESS like filing organizing taking care of the ATS updates, but the face-to-face areas of recruitment need to be kept to the Recruiter in my opinion.
I really appreciate your take! And I agree with you on one key point: candidate experience matters, regardless of role or level. If AI makes people feel like they don’t matter, that’s a failure, no matter what the stats say.
What makes this study interesting to me is that it didn’t show the “poopooed IVR chatbot” effect you describe. On the contrary, candidates rated their experience about the same as with humans, and almost 8 out of 10 actually chose AI when given the option. That doesn’t mean AI suddenly equals great candidate experience everywhere, but it does challenge some of our assumptions.
And yes, this was entry-level, high-volume work which is also where 60–80% of the global workforce sits (OECD/WEF). That’s why I think this data point matters, even with all the caveats.
For me, it’s less about “AI replacing humans” and more about figuring out when AI can take a role in the process without damaging candidate experience and when the human connection is non-negotiable.
This is so fascinating. I’m curious iof the demographics of the applicants, particularly age. As AI voice improves I suspect we won’t be able to tell the difference.
Yeah, I smell a lot of BS in this though not to blame the author of course. I enjoy the article very much. I just believe that there’s a lot of outcomes in recruiting with AI that don’t have specifics that we need to review and know about before we are impressed with statistics like this. The reason why this doesn’t really make sense to me and I called BS on it, is because candidates engaged with automated interactive voice response systems controlled by AI have universally poopooed their interactions with IVR chatbots, just don’t feel a connection with the company because of the impersonal AI chatbot. They don’t always necessarily report a positive experience with the brand at all- many candidates have reported that they don’t feel important to the company at all!! They just put up with it because they need . And that shouldn’t surprise anyone. So this flies in the face of that basic knowledge. I’d have to check the specifics of the social science techniques behind the metrics to actually know if this was an effective study. Moreover, it doesn’t really say what level of hires these are that they’re interviewing for through the AI voice response system, but I’m certain they’re lower level probably the lowest level of hires companies can make. However, I would advocate that even the “lowest level” of hires deserves the best candidate experience with more human interaction! I’m all for AI automating the areas in recruitment that are BRAINLESS like filing organizing taking care of the ATS updates, but the face-to-face areas of recruitment need to be kept to the Recruiter in my opinion.
I really appreciate your take! And I agree with you on one key point: candidate experience matters, regardless of role or level. If AI makes people feel like they don’t matter, that’s a failure, no matter what the stats say.
What makes this study interesting to me is that it didn’t show the “poopooed IVR chatbot” effect you describe. On the contrary, candidates rated their experience about the same as with humans, and almost 8 out of 10 actually chose AI when given the option. That doesn’t mean AI suddenly equals great candidate experience everywhere, but it does challenge some of our assumptions.
And yes, this was entry-level, high-volume work which is also where 60–80% of the global workforce sits (OECD/WEF). That’s why I think this data point matters, even with all the caveats.
For me, it’s less about “AI replacing humans” and more about figuring out when AI can take a role in the process without damaging candidate experience and when the human connection is non-negotiable.
This is so fascinating. I’m curious iof the demographics of the applicants, particularly age. As AI voice improves I suspect we won’t be able to tell the difference.