In this panel, three practitioners who have rolled out, built and governed AI in talent programs set out the proof an AI tool owes you before it touches an HR decision. You’ll also get the three questions Kate Young would put to any vendor, and hear why the time and money case for AI screening is weaker than many buyers assume.
Vendors say a human stays in the loop. But if 2,000 people apply and a recruiter reviews the top 300, the tool has already decided the other 1,700. Kate Young sees that pattern across the market, and the panel raised three reasons to look harder at it:
Midway through the session, we put a live poll to a room of talent and assessment practitioners: what usually drives the decision to adopt an AI talent tool?
Saving time or money came out on top. Fear of being left behind came second, closely followed by pressure from leadership. Proven results came last of the four, and sat at zero through the first wave of votes.
The panel’s reaction, including why the most popular answer may be the shakiest, is in the recording.
Chief People Officer, UK and Ireland, and Global Lead, AI Workforce Transformation, Ipsos
Leads Ipsos’s global AI workforce transformation. Sits on the CIPD AI Advisory Board and the Oxfam GB board, and co-wrote Rapid Reculturing, on culture in the age of AI.
AI, People and Culture Director, AI Learning
Co-founded AI Learning to help companies adopt AI. Previously led global recruitment at ISS, applying AI and automation across 125,000 recruitments.
Founder, The Hiring Science Studio
Occupational psychologist with around 25 years in assessment R&D, including Cubiks (now Talogy) and Multiverse. Founded The Hiring Science Studio to help employers govern AI in hiring.
Chief Commercial Officer, Saville Assessment
A psychologist by background, Hannah now leads Saville Assessment’s commercial function.
Who built it, and is it written down? Our validity evidence is published, and our technical documentation is yours on request.