 |
|
|
|||||
As the labor market tightens and job seekers leverage AI to apply for jobs en masse, recruiters are receiving hundreds or thousands of applicants for a single position. To deal with the deluge, many employers are adopting new tools, often powered by AI, to make recruiting more efficient, and, in some cases, replace human contact. A Resume Builder survey from last year suggested that nearly 70% of companies would use AI in their hiring process by the end of 2025. Talent acquisition leaders tout the effectiveness of new recruiting tech: virtual assessments, asynchronous and AI-powered interviewing, chatbots, and the like. But what do job seekers think? According to applicants, what new recruiting tech has going for it is speed. What it lacks, often, is clarity. IT WAS SHORTER AND MORE SUCCINCT One of the most common additions is the asynchronous video interview, in which applicants record answers that a recruiter reviews later. It often replaces screening calls, and sometimes, later-stage interviews. While recruiters dont have time to schedule and conduct calls with a hundred applicants, they can review prerecorded answers from as many. More than half a dozen job seekers told Fast Company they spend anywhere from 30 minutes to two hours getting their two- to five-minute videos just right, worrying over lighting and sound and their own appearance, tweaking their answers, and recording multiple takes. Yet overall, the reviews are positive. Many say its still more convenient than a screening call with a recruiter. Sarah, whos spent 20 years in HR, doesnt want her employer to know shes job shopping, so she asked that we withhold her last name. Following a recent asynchronous interview, she was notified that a recruiter had looked at her answers. Even though she didnt advance, the rejection was more palatable as I knew they had at least reviewed my information, Sarah says. Most of the time, shes been left to wonder whether anyone even bothered to set eyes on her résumé. Some employers ask applicants to participate in video interviews with AI-generated bots that look and sound human. Nola Johnson, who works in customer success, met a series of three AI interviewers for an early-stage screening. She feels positively about the experience, even if the AI interviewer was glitchy and unable to end the conversation when time expired. It was shorter and more succinct than talking to a real recruiter, she says. If some employers are betting that an AI-generated contact is better than no contact at all, they may be right. According to a recent survey of 1,000 U.S. adults, conducted by recruiting software firm iCIMS, 40% of workers say that never hearing from an organization after applying is their number-one frustration. Indeed, what video modules lack in humanity they make up for in speed. Nola, after comparing notes with other job seekers, learned she heard back from the AI interviewer faster than her friends heard back from human interviewers. But many of these tools are new, and stories of glitchy AI abound. Among the worst culprits are chatbots that employers embed in their career pages. Ostensibly, the purpose is to answer basic questions that would otherwise consume valuable recruiter time. Jessica is a legal analyst who works at a law firm in Louisiana. (She also doesnt want us to use her last name since she doesnt want her employer to know shes looking around.) Jessica uses chatbots regularly and likes that she gets immediate answers, but says they dont always work as advertised. Some are so tightly scripted that theyre unable to handle basic questions about the job description or the benefits the company offers. APPLICANTS ACCEPT THE TECH, BUT STILL QUESTION ITS INTENT While some HR tech improves efficiency, others confound. Among the most confusing elements of job seeking in the age of HR tech: personality assessments. Personality assessments in the workplace arent new, but they are becoming more common thanks to how easy it is to insert them into a digital hiring process. Its another screening tool hiring teams are using to vet applicants. Yet job seekers dont know why theyre being made to take them. Jessica was asked to take an assessment similar to the Myers-Briggs test. But she didnt understand what they were evaluating her for, or how it related to the job. She didnt even get to see the results. Sarah was also asked to take a personality test while interviewing, a request shes okay with as long as its relevant to the job, but Sarah worries that companies are relying on tired stereotypes to eliminate or advance applicantsthat only extroverts succeed in certain roles, for example. Lack of clarity can bruise the employer-applicant relationship. According to the same iCIMS report, the most frustrating parts of job searching are the ones that leave applicants wondering, why? Lack of transparency and relevant information leave 77% of job seekers frustrated. When applicants interact with interfaces more than humans, theres little room to ask why somethinglike a personality test, for exampleis being used. Nola has applied to jobs where she was given the option to opt out of having her résumé reviewed by an AI tool. Yet, she says, what I would be curious about is not when or if, its how. Is it ranking me? Do I get a flag? If I remove myself from it being reviewed by AI, will I automatically move to the bottom of the list? Its never been clear. What bothers her most is that she doesnt know how all of these new tools and evaluations are being used, tools that introduce a certain level of tedium to the process. And in some cases, her patience is exhausted. Now, if Nola is asked to submit an asynchronous video interview, she just moves onshe doesnt think its worth her time.
Category:
E-Commerce
Getting federal approval for permits to build bridges, wind farms, highways, and other major infrastructure projects has long been a complicated and time-consuming process. Despite growing calls from both parties for Congress and federal agencies to reform that process, there had been few significant revisionsuntil now. In one fell swoop, the U.S. Supreme Court has changed a big part of the game. Whether the effects are good or bad depends on the viewers perspective. Either way, there is a new interpretation in place for the law that is the centerpiece of the debate about permittingthe National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, known as NEPA. Taking a big-picture look NEPA requires federal agencies to document and describe the environmental effects of any proposed action, including construction of oil pipelines, renewable energy, and other infrastructure projects. Only after completing that work can the agency make a final decision to approve or deny the project. These reports must evaluate direct effects, such as the destruction of habitat to make way for a new highway, and indirect effects, such as the air pollution from cars using the highway after it is built. Decades of litigation about the scope of indirect effects have widened the required evaluation. As I explain it to my students, that logical and legal progression is reminiscent of the popular childrens book If You Give a Mouse a Cookie, in which granting a request for a cookie triggers a seemingly endless series of further requestsfor a glass of milk, a napkin, and so on. For the highway example, the arguments went, even if the agency properly assessed the pollution from the cars, it also had to consider the new subdivisions, malls, and jobs the new highway foreseeably could induce. The challenge for federal agencies was knowing how much of that potentially limitless series of indirect effects courts would require them to evaluate. In recent litigation, the question in particular has been how broad a range of effects on and from climate change could be linked to any one specific project and therefore require evaluation. With the courts ruling, federal agencies days of uncertainty are over. Biggest NEPA case in decades On May 29, 2025, the Supreme Court (minus Justice Neil Gorsuch, who had recused himself) decided the case of Seven County Infrastructure Coalition v. Eagle County, Colorado, the first major NEPA dispute before the court in 20 years. At issue was an 85-mile rail line a group of developers proposed to build in Utah to connect oil wells to the interstate rail network and from there transport waxy crude oil to refineries in Louisiana, Texas, and elsewhere. The federal Surface Transportation Board reviewed the environmental effects and approved the required license in 2021. The report was 637 pages long, with more than 3,000 pages of appendices containing additional information. It acknowledged but did not give a detailed assessment of the indirect upstream effects of constructing the rail linesuch as spurring new oil drillingand the indirect downstream effects of the ultimate use of the waxy oil in places as far-flung as Louisiana. In February 2022, Eagle County, Colorado, through which trains coming from the new railway would pass, along with the Center for Biological Diversity appealed that decision in federal court, arguing that the board had failed to properly explain why it did not assess those effects. Therefore, the county argued, the report was incomplete and the board license should be vacated. In August 2023, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit agreed and held that the agency had failed to adequately explain why it could not employ some degree of forecasting to identify those impacts and that the board could prevent those effects by exercising its authority to deny the license. The railway developers appealed to the Supreme Court, asking whether NEPA requires a federal agency to look beyond the action being proposed to evaluate indirect effects outside its own jurisdiction. A resounding declaration Writing for a five-justice majority, Justice Brett Kavanaugh delivered a ringing, table-pounding lecture about courts run amok. Kavanaugh did not stop to provide specific support for each admonition, describing NEPA as a legislative acorn that has grown over the years into a judicial oak that has hindered infrastructure development. He bemoaned the delay upon delay NEPA imposes on projects as so complicated that it bordered on the Kafkaesque. In his view, NEPA has transformed from a modest procedural requirement into a blunt and haphazard tool employed by project opponents. He called for a course correction . . . to bring judicial review under NEPA back in line with the statutory text and common sense. His opinion reset the course in three ways. First, despite the Supreme Court having recently reduced the deference courts must give to federal agency decisions in other contexts, Kavanaugh wrote that courts should give agencies strong deference when reviewing an agencys NEPA effects analyses. Because these assessments are fact-dependent, context-specific, and policy-laden choices about the depth and breadth of its inquiry . . . (c)ourts should afford substantial deference and should not micromanage those agency choices so long as they fall within a broad zone of reasonableness. Second, Kavanaugh crafted a new rule saying that the review of one project did not need to consider the potential indirect effects of other related projects it could foreseeably induce, such as the rail line encouraging more drilling for oil. This limitation is especially relevant, Kavanaugh emphasized, when the effects are from projects over which the reviewing agency does not have urisdiction. That applied in this case, because the board does not regulate oil wells or oil drilling. And third, Kavanaugh created something like a no harm, no foul rule, under which even if an [environmental impact statement] falls short in some respects, that deficiency may not necessarily require a court to vacate the agencys ultimate approval of a project. The strong implication is that courts should not overturn an agency decision unless its NEPA assessment has a serious flaw. The upshot for the project at hand was that the Supreme Court deferred to the boards decision that it could not reliably predict the rail lines effects on oil drilling or use of the oil transported. And the fact that the agency had no regulatory power over those separate issues reinforced the idea that those concerns were outside the scope of the boards required review. A split court Although Justice Sonia Sotomayor, joined by Justices Elena Kagan and Ketanji Brown Jackson, wrote that she would have reached the same end result and upheld the agency permit, her proposed test is far narrower. By her reading, the federal law creating the Surface Transportation Board restricted it from considering the broader indirect effects of the rail line. But her finding would be relevant only for any federal agencies whose governing statutes were similarly restrictive. By contrast, Kavanaughs course correction applies to judicial review of NEPA findings for all federal agencies. Though the full effects remain to be seen, this decision significantly changes the legal landscape of environmental reviews of major projects. Agencies will have more latitude to shorten the causal chain of indirect effects they consider, and to exclude them entirely if they flow from separate projects beyond the agencys regulatory control. Now, for example, if a federal agency is considering an application to build a new natural gas power plant, the review must still include its direct greenhouse gas emissions and their effects on the climate. But emissions that could result from additional gas extraction and transportation projects to fuel the power plant, and any climate effects from whatever the produced electricity is used for, are now clearly outside the agencys required review. And if the agency voluntarily decided to consider any of those effects, courts would have to defer to its analysis, and any minor deficiencies would be inconsequential. That is a far cry from how the legal structure around the National Environmental Policy Act has worked for decades. For lawyers, industry, advocacy groups, and the courts, environmental review after the Eagle County decision is not just a new ball gameits a new sport. J.B. Ruhl is a professor of law and director of the Program on Law and Innovation and co-director of the Energy, Environment and Land Use Program at Vanderbilt University. This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.
Category:
E-Commerce
Major announcements around the VisionPro headset are expected next week and may even confirm tantalizing rumors that a lighter model of the high-end XR device is coming next year. Whatever Apple reveals at WWDC, we can expect another round of analyst predictions that this time, mass adoption of head-mounted displays is finally happening. As Apple, Meta, and other major players continue to struggle with taking the technology mainstream, its worth addressing the virtual elephant in the room: Theres reason to suspect that XR headsets barrier to success isnt just about cost, headset weight, lack of content, eye strain, or other frequently cited issues. Neuroscience suggests that the sensory experience of XR can’t compensate for the value of sharing a physical environment with our screensespecially when it comes to how we form knowledge and memory. Experiments with XR for Full-Time Computing About 10 years ago, I started spending long sessions in VR (48 hours daily over several weeks) to see how it might affect my sense of time and attention. I began with the HTC Vive, which was comfortable and fun. Later, I tested the Apple VisionPro with a full virtual workstation of monitors and displays. I was curious whether XR could improve focus and research. It felt like a very different thing to use VR all day, versus a brief demo in a museum or Apple showroom. Early on, I had to stand and move constantly throughout the day. It was exhausting, though it made for a great workout (SUPERHOT was one of my favorites). But this kind of motion-based interaction didnt translate well to daily work tasks. Tossing data around in 3D like in Minority Report might make for compelling cinema, but it’s far less practical over time. When the VisionPro arrived, I was excited to use it while seated. A friend set me up with a massive virtual workspace, and I genuinely appreciated the focus it provided when I was digging into something newsay, reading a dense Wikipedia article. Still, when I set up my home office last year, I chose two large physical monitors at eye level and a sit/stand desk. As enjoyable as VR was, the process of setup and adjusting the space took more time and energy than docking a laptop. And even though I was initially thrilled to be in a virtual workspace, I found myself feeling more distant from the real world. I wanted to go outside more, and didnt feel like looking at any screen at all by days end. I also noticed the difference in eye strain from screens so close to my face. I prefer to work near a window where I can shift my gaze into the distance. That rhythm of looking away and refocusing helps me process thoughtsespecially after encountering something new. The Trouble With Losing Touch I asked my colleague Dr. David Sisson, a neurophysiologist, why XR adoption hasnt matched media hype. He reminded me that audio and visual inputsthe primary senses XR taps intoarent the full picture. Then theres the matter of touch in XR. Without touch, theres no intimacy. Youre not really interacting with whats going on, David told me. You can hit a balland hear the crack in VRbut youre not feeling anything other than a little jerk in the controller that makes you feel like theres some inertia happening. In short, headsets deprive us of the tactile and physical context that supports memory formation. Contrast that with playing a console game: you’re anchored in a physical space, hands on colorful controllers, with the screen at a distance. If you’re like me, you vividly remember not just the game, but the exact couch you sat on and the friends or family who played with you. The Neuroscience of Virtual Experience This sense of placeness goes beyond just touch. As David explained, [C]hemical senses are not a part of [the VR experience] . . . Theres a well-considered idea, a linkage between olfaction, smell between memorythat youre living that out of the [VR] picture entirely. Attempts at incorporating virtual smells into XR exist, but it’s unclear whether theyre effectiveor even desirable. Recent research supports what French literature has long told us: smell powerfully evokes memory. Studies show scent not only enhances recall but may also support learning across other sensory areas. While XR devices like VisionPro do re-create home and office setups and allow for vast screen real estate, they lack a true sense of location. Evolution shaped our brains to operate differently depending on whether we’re traveling or at home. Researchers call this the encoding specificity principleour memories link closely with the environment where they were first formed. With a headset on, our minds dont fully orient to a place, and so we never quite settle in. Apple offers a vast virtual workspace you can take on the go, but that benefit comes at the cost of the sensory richness and physical grounding of a real-world setup. Neuroscience, not just practicality, suggests that working in a physical spacewith monitors, windows, textures, smells, and distanceoffers deeper engagement and memory retention. Putting the Pro in VisionPro To be clear, XR headsets excel in specific contexts like rehabilitation or short bursts of fully embodied interaction, where body motion tracking is vital. Some content creators might find immense value in a distraction-free, multiscreen virtual studio. But thats not a mass-market audience. XR evangelists may continue promoting VisionPro as the breakout device, but weand Apple, for that mattershould remember that Pro isnt just branding. It reflects the narrow set of advanced use cases that justify immersion. For most of us, computing still works best in a physical world that engages all five senses. And thats not something XR can replicateat least, not yet.
Category:
E-Commerce
All news |
||||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||