I afresh made a chatbot for recruiters to collaborate with my portfolio, which garnered some absorption on Twitter:


You can collaborate with it here.

This was a simple experiment I did to manage application emails and job applications, aggressive by Big Kid Lab. My aboriginal ambition was to advertise my able skills and get hands-on acquaintance with communicative AI design, but I added some bolder questions to filter out recruiters who represent companies that don’t align with my values. It’s rather alarming if a aggregation still hasn’t taken a stance of abutment for BLM or other social amends issues at this point. Being a woman of color in tech, I know that their blackout represents a larger association of the way I would be seen and advised in that work environment.

Before the recruiter can collaborate with my chatbot, they are prompted with a defining question: do you accept that Black lives matter? If they acknowledge no, or try to added belittle the cause by saying that all lives matter, the chat ends immediately. If not, the recruiter may abide interacting with the bot which answers a series of questions about my work history, experience, goals, etc.

This is just an automatic chatbot, so by no means the defining endpoint of my assurance — I always thoroughly analysis what initiatives the aggregation has taken, what causes they fight for, and what their aggregation ability is like. But from basic psychology, I know that the recruiter agreeable with my site will look at this catechism and either (1) be so taken aback and turned off by this “unprofessional” catechism that they don’t acquaintance or (2) acquaintance me. The latter, I assume, will have a basic compassionate of how our association always oppresses marginalized communities, and why using their belvedere to speak out is so important.