Employers, ditch the AI detection instruments and ask one vital query as a substitute.

I noticed a put up on LinkedIn from the Director of a Consulting Agency describing how he assigned an essay about mannequin drift in machine studying programs to display screen potential candidates.

Then, primarily based on standards that he established primarily based on his intuitions (“you’ll be able to odor it”) he used 4 completely different “AI detectors” to “affirm” that the candidates used ChatGPT to put in writing their responses to the essay.

The standards for “suspected” bot-generated essays had been:

• bizarre sentence construction
• wonky analogies
• repetition
• switching from one English dialect to a different (in separate writing samples from the identical software)

One standards notably lacking: accuracy.

The rationale behind that is that utilizing AI instruments is attempting to subvert the candidate choice course of. Evidently, the feedback are wild (and really LinkedIn-core).

I can respect that argument, though I discover his methodology lower than rigorous. It looks as if he needed to keep away from candidates who would copy and paste a response straight from ChatGPT with out scrutiny.

Nevertheless, I feel this put up raises an attention-grabbing query that we as a society have to discover — is utilizing an LLM that will help you write dishonest throughout the hiring course of?

I might say it isn’t. Right here is the argument for why utilizing an LLM that will help you write is simply fantastic and why it shouldn’t exclude you as a candidate.

As a bonus for the Director, I’ll embrace a greater methodology for filtering candidates primarily based on how they use LLMs and AI instruments.