Hari Srinivasan的动态

Linkedin's code of practice says it want to limit false and misleading information. It says it wants to stop dangerous comments. It says a lot. But when you mark a post for review that clearly is spreading lies... lies that have been refuted in a court of law... lies that have proven to be dangerous and deadly... it won't do a thing. Money over integrity. Linkedin even refused to block a member who posted that he wanted to shoot public officials. As this election comes to a close, it is time to reflect upon the conduct of members. Linkedin is a $3 Billion company. It has resources. It has a code of conduct. Yet, it refuses to be a responsible entity that is trying to bring our country back from the brink. You and I don't let violent speech, racism, or propaganda in our workplace... why should we tolerate Linkedin's willingness to turn a blind eye?

This is interesting. As a former recruiter, totally agree - most of the day is unfortunately spent bogged down on follow ups. Questions that come to mind: is the line getting blurred between Linkedin and ATS? Is Linkedin's end goal to BECOME an ATS? It's an intriguing thought, and not a bad idea if most professionals are already on LinkedIn anyways. Something else that I think would be super helpful is helping candidates understand why they are not a fit. Providing individualized feedback to candidates is a huge time commitment for recruiters too, and many companies limit what feedback can be shared (if any) leaving candidates largely unsatisfied. I'm part of a networking group and I continually hear from other members how awful it is to get ghosted once they are engaged by a recruiter and also never hearing back on their applications. I wonder if eventually, if LinkedIn does continue moving towards looking like an ATS, if AI can start providing a feedback mechanism on why the candidate doesn't stack up against other candidates and whomever was eventually hired for the role. Using it as a learning tool for candidates on why they didn't get the role and perhaps suggesting other roles they might be a better fit for.

AI is a powerful tool, but there are some concerns with the LinkedIn platform. The focus seems to be too much on recruiters and not enough on job seekers. Increasing job scams are not being adequately addressed even after being reported. Additionally, there should be a strategy to prevent recruiters from reposting the same jobs repeatedly. When I update my profile to #OpenToWork, I am flooded with "Let's Connect" canned messages. LinkedIn has several areas that need immediate improvement. While using AI for administrative tasks is beneficial, it's imperative to work closely with job seekers. Creating an algorithm to prevent job scams and constant reposting of the same position should be addressed immediately. Enhancing the overall experience on this platform is essential. I am trying to find a position, but when I post the #OpenToWork "Green Ribbon of Doom," I receive scam messages all day. I'm hoping there is a contact at LinkedIn to address these issues quickly.. Let's roll LinkedIn! Make the platform work for those looking for employment.

While AI promises to streamline recruiting, it risks reducing complex human potential to a set of data points. As someone who has secured roles by demonstrating capabilities beyond paper qualifications, I'm concerned about this shift. Success in a role isn't just about skills - it's about how individuals uniquely blend their experiences, knowledge, and creativity. AI systems, trained on historical data, inherently favor the statistical average, potentially overlooking exceptional outliers. Moreover, job seeking is an inherently vulnerable experience. Having machines filter candidates risks dehumanizing this process, particularly affecting those whose strengths lie in their unique perspectives and non-traditional backgrounds. This could become a new form of marginalization, where AI's preference for the median excludes diverse talents who don't fit conventional patterns. It feels like a step in the wrong direction.

Great way to facilitate the ‘administrative’ side of recruiting. Seems to be anchored in ‘precision hiring’. Some very valid ‘alarm bell’ insights in the comments. Recruiting includes some important ‘grey zones’. Some of the most successful people I’ve known were hired because they had huge potential to not only do, but shape, a job in a way that could be incredibly valuable. It was the intuition of the recruiter that spotted that. Then there’s the latest practice of putting a lot of effort into ‘gaming’ the AI system using AI to get on the list of candidates considered. So, aside from the ‘admin’ side of managing ‘deal flow’ (thinking of people as an investment), will AI make hiring too precise (focusing on people that can do the exact job within 5 minutes of being hired), and wipe out the ‘grey zone’ of helping people realize their full professional potential (and part of the mission of LinkedIn)? It will be interesting to see how this idea evolves, and makes the process (as a holistic system) both less tedious and more ‘human’ at the same time.

??Does it look for candidates who are “open to work” or exclude them like we have heard (from recruiters) that the LI Recruiter product does in its main Search function? ????Please prioritize enhancements and features that reduce the bias against the unemployed, underemployed, long term unemployed, and over 35/40/50/60/70. ????

Makes perfect sense for LinkedIn's business. Hard not to have immediate concerns with potential bias in what sort of criteria are used by the underlying AI curation model, and how these sort of products may incentivize candidates to try to game AI recommendations, though.

keywords, keywords, keywords. first impressions: terrible idea. if i stuff my resume/CV with keywords am i a better candidate than those who didnt? the art changes the artist.. :(

Wondering what Dana or Lottie think of this if you have tried ladies?