ChatGPT vs human expertise in the context of IT recruitment

IF 7.5 1区 计算机科学 Q1 COMPUTER SCIENCE, ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE Expert Systems with Applications Pub Date : 2024-12-01 DOI:10.1016/j.eswa.2024.125868
Tomasz Szandała
{"title":"ChatGPT vs human expertise in the context of IT recruitment","authors":"Tomasz Szandała","doi":"10.1016/j.eswa.2024.125868","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><div>This study aims to address the gap in understanding the extent to which AI can replace human technical interviewers in the recruitment process. It investigates the potential of a Large Language Models, specifically ChatGPT, Google Gemini and Mistral, in assessing candidates’ competencies in Information Technology (IT) compared to evaluations made by human experts. The experiment involved three experienced DevOps specialists who assessed the written responses of 21 candidates to ten industry-relevant questions; each limited to 500 characters. The evaluation was conducted using a simple yet effective −2 to 2 scale, with −2 indicating a negative assessment for incorrect answers, 0 for ambiguous or incomplete answers, and 2 for excellent responses. The same set of responses was then evaluated by LLMs, adhering to the identical criteria and scale. This comparative analysis aims to determine the reliability and accuracy of AI in replicating expert human judgement in IT recruitment. The study’s findings, backed by the Fleiss kappa test, show that human reviewers are not perfectly aligned in their judgement. On the other hand, the AI tool also lacks consistency, as the consequent repetition of the same review request may result in a different decision. The results are anticipated to contribute to the ongoing discourse on AI-assisted decision-making and its practical applications in human resource management and recruitment.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":50461,"journal":{"name":"Expert Systems with Applications","volume":"264 ","pages":"Article 125868"},"PeriodicalIF":7.5000,"publicationDate":"2024-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Expert Systems with Applications","FirstCategoryId":"94","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0957417424027350","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"计算机科学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"COMPUTER SCIENCE, ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

This study aims to address the gap in understanding the extent to which AI can replace human technical interviewers in the recruitment process. It investigates the potential of a Large Language Models, specifically ChatGPT, Google Gemini and Mistral, in assessing candidates’ competencies in Information Technology (IT) compared to evaluations made by human experts. The experiment involved three experienced DevOps specialists who assessed the written responses of 21 candidates to ten industry-relevant questions; each limited to 500 characters. The evaluation was conducted using a simple yet effective −2 to 2 scale, with −2 indicating a negative assessment for incorrect answers, 0 for ambiguous or incomplete answers, and 2 for excellent responses. The same set of responses was then evaluated by LLMs, adhering to the identical criteria and scale. This comparative analysis aims to determine the reliability and accuracy of AI in replicating expert human judgement in IT recruitment. The study’s findings, backed by the Fleiss kappa test, show that human reviewers are not perfectly aligned in their judgement. On the other hand, the AI tool also lacks consistency, as the consequent repetition of the same review request may result in a different decision. The results are anticipated to contribute to the ongoing discourse on AI-assisted decision-making and its practical applications in human resource management and recruitment.

Abstract Image

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
在IT招聘的背景下,ChatGPT与人类专业知识
这项研究旨在解决理解人工智能在招聘过程中取代人类技术面试官的程度上的差距。它调查了大型语言模型的潜力,特别是ChatGPT,谷歌Gemini和Mistral,与人类专家的评估相比,评估候选人在信息技术(It)方面的能力。该实验涉及三位经验丰富的DevOps专家,他们评估了21名候选人对10个行业相关问题的书面回答;每个限制为500个字符。评估使用简单而有效的- 2到2量表进行,- 2表示对错误答案的负面评估,0表示模棱两可或不完整的答案,2表示优秀的回答。然后由法学硕士根据相同的标准和量表对同一组反应进行评估。本对比分析旨在确定人工智能在IT招聘中复制专家判断的可靠性和准确性。该研究的发现得到了Fleiss kappa测试的支持,表明人类审稿人的判断并不完全一致。另一方面,人工智能工具也缺乏一致性,因为随后重复相同的审查请求可能导致不同的决策。预计研究结果将有助于正在进行的关于人工智能辅助决策及其在人力资源管理和招聘中的实际应用的讨论。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Expert Systems with Applications
Expert Systems with Applications 工程技术-工程:电子与电气
CiteScore
13.80
自引率
10.60%
发文量
2045
审稿时长
8.7 months
期刊介绍: Expert Systems With Applications is an international journal dedicated to the exchange of information on expert and intelligent systems used globally in industry, government, and universities. The journal emphasizes original papers covering the design, development, testing, implementation, and management of these systems, offering practical guidelines. It spans various sectors such as finance, engineering, marketing, law, project management, information management, medicine, and more. The journal also welcomes papers on multi-agent systems, knowledge management, neural networks, knowledge discovery, data mining, and other related areas, excluding applications to military/defense systems.
期刊最新文献
ChatGPT vs human expertise in the context of IT recruitment An enhanced interval-valued PM2.5 concentration forecasting model with attention-based feature extraction and self-adaptive combination technology A new hybrid swarm intelligence-based maximum power point tracking technique for solar photovoltaic systems under varying irradiations A new data-driven production scheduling method based on digital twin for smart shop floors Editorial Board
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1