Ask HN: Has tech hiring lost its human touch in the age of AI resumes?
1 comments
So I don't think so yet because I work in ai recruiting firm like product so majority of our customers are take and people like them so but there are not fully clear on what exactly it is an a recruiter and how can it help but will definitely soon happen.
The applicant pool is noisier than ever, with tools enabling mass-customized submissions that often blur the line between genuine and fabricated experience. It's a real challenge for everyone involved. This pushes even straightforward candidates to amp up their materials just to get past filters, which feels counterproductive—penalizing those who'd shine in a more direct evaluation. Screening often falls to folks without hands-on dev experience, leading to mismatches in what gets prioritized (e.g., keyword hits over problem-solving depth). Devs and HR types bring different strengths, but it can create odd blind spots. Beyond core engineering, many roles in software orgs (HR, PMs, etc.) are filled by generalists rather than those with lived dev cycles under their belt. Contrast this with pro sports, where ex-players often handle coaching and ops. There are plenty of dev-savvy people who might not code full-time anymore but could bridge those engineering-business divides effectively. In practice, though, these positions rarely tap that potential, sticking to neutral (or sometimes frictional) contributions.
I'm still mulling this over—curious if others are seeing the same? How are you navigating hiring as a candidate or hirer? Any creative workarounds or signs of change on the horizon? (Posting anon for now.)