1 pointby A1aM019 days ago1 comment
  • Serenacula10 days ago
    This does unfortunately lead to a problem of people only getting hired for jobs exactly like what they've already done, so they no longer grow or gain experience.

    Juniors would be completely screwed. But then, I guess they sort of already are.

    • A1aM09 days ago
      You hit the nail on the head regarding Juniors—they are already in a tough spot, and I certainly don't want to build a tool that makes that worse.

      However, my hypothesis is that matching on 'Problem Vectors' might actually help break the cycle of 'only getting hired for what you've already done.'

      Transferable Complexity: A traditional recruiter sees 'Game Dev' and ignores them for a Fintech role. But a vector model might see that the candidate solved a 'distributed concurrency' problem in a game that is mathematically similar to the 'payment sync' issue in the JD. It matches on capability, not just domain keywords. Signal for Juniors: Currently, ATS filters reject Juniors based on '0 years experience.' If a Junior has tackled a complex logic problem in a hobby project or Hackathon, this system highlights that specific signal. It gives them a fighting chance based on code reality rather than resume keywords. That said, I agree this model naturally leans towards Senior/Specialist roles where specific technical gaps need immediate filling. It's not a silver bullet for 'hiring for potential,' but I hope it's a step up from the current keyword-soup approach.