ChatGPT interviewing ChatGPT
Hello, is this ChatGPT? Yes, this is ChatGPT.
Welcome to FullStack HR, and an extra welcome to all the people from H&M - hello and a warm welcome!
If you haven’t yet subscribed, join the 5000+ smart, curious HR folks by subscribing here:
Happy Friday, folks!
It's truly a happy one.
Because the internet is truly marvelous, I’ve been writing stuff online since 2009, and sometimes I forget how much fun it has led to.
This week’s fun was talking to the global HR team at H&M.
As usual, I talked a bit too fast, got too excited, and got carried away, but it was incredibly fun. I’m a lucky guy who gets the opportunity to speak to HR professionals like those at H&M.
And I’m even luckier that my boss allows me to do these kinds of sessions every now and then.
Do you want me to speak to your team?
I have very limited availability, but email me, and we’ll see what we can do.
More fun this week: Sitting down with Ravio's CEO Merten for a podcast about the future of compensation.
But enough about me - let's dive in!
In my lectures on AI, like the one I recently gave for H&M, there's an anecdote that always gets a laugh: I describe how some are now using generative tools to ace job interviews.
I've heard of candidates feeding all available data about a role into ChatGPT, using the OpenAI to record questions the recruiter asks, having it generate answers instantly, and reading them back to the interviewer.
Essentially, ChatGPT interviewing itself.
This exemplifies the larger paradigm shift regarding AI's role in knowledge and work. On one hand, many of us now routinely use generative AI to enhance productivity. We see the benefits of having an on-demand assistant like ChatGPT to solve complex tasks.
On the other hand, when hiring, we still want to evaluate if candidates truly possess the expertise they claim.
We want to confirm they genuinely are the engineer, marketer, or other professional portrayed. But does the source of their knowledge matter if they can capably do the job?
This question encapsulates the current turmoil. Pragmatists argue outcomes are what count - if AI helps someone excel, the process is secondary. Democratizing access to knowledge has an upside.
But an outcomes-only view risks losing something profoundly human. Creativity, ethics, and judgment - these arise through human experience. AI can generate content, but people determine what content has social value. (Call me old-school if you like…)
In hiring, balance is prudent. Some directly acquired skills seem reasonable to expect. Over-rigidity could discount capable talent augmented by AI.
To be provocative, consider this - your janitor or receptionist likely has the creativity and judgment to contribute more widely. They are already hired, so they know your culture and values, and hopefully, they align ethically with your organization.
What if they complement that with AI-aided skills acquisition?
I believe the ideal future integrates the complementary strengths of humans and AI. Humans supply wisdom, values, and creativity. AI provides information and analysis. We must nurture human judgment while appropriately scoping AI's role to thrive.
But what will that mean for certain professions, jobs that generative AI could solve 60-70% of? Should we re-think how we view certain professions and care more for how creative and outcome-minded people are and less about the traits and skills that go into a certain profession?
As you might have guessed, I’m torn.
But I do think it’s worthwhile pondering the problem.
But back to our original question, what should organizations make of candidates potentially using AI interview aids?
I would advise organizations not to ban the use of AI tools like ChatGPT for interviews. As generative AI becomes more prevalent in workplaces, people leveraging these technologies to showcase their capabilities strikes me positively.
Rather than outright banning AI aids, companies should thoughtfully reflect on aligning interview practices with core values. If thoughtfully incorporated, AI can augment human skills rather than replace them.
The goal should be integrating human strengths like creativity and wisdom with AI's data processing and content skills. With a balanced approach, organizations can tap into the benefits of AI tools while focusing interviews on the human qualities crucial for job fit and success.
With care and intent, we can incorporate AI judiciously while still prizing human judgment where it matters most.
I’d love to hear your thoughts on this!