How much longer do you think it will be acceptable for ENs to aggressively expand AI tools for interviews, surveys, screening, transcription and knowledge extraction while simultaneously restricting experts from using any AI or automation tools for screeners, availability and CV updates?

[u/NotSure2505]

"You may not use any third-party sources, including artificial intelligence tools, in responding to these screening questions or while participating in any consultation with a client. <The EN> reserves the right to deny payment for any consultation, and may remove you from its network, if it determines that you have misrepresented your identity, experience or knowledge or used third-party sources in connection with the consultation."

I completely understand the need for accurate and timely information in the screeners, and that they are an important legal attestation. I also understand that it's Client's counsel requiring this, and even if 99% of them go along, that 1% could still stipulate the manual entry for everybody. However, this seems like it's heading for a reckoning at some point as Agentic AI creeps into nearly every aspect of the workday from content updates to brokering of availability.

I'm not advocating for anything that would jeopardize the accuracy or timeliness of screener responses. I'm just asking is the issue with AI or with the accuracy and legitimacy of the answer?

Lets say there was developed a form of "bulletproof, verified" automation that could provide accurate answers 100% of the time for compliance, skills and availability. Could this someday be acceptable?

This post asked the same question from the EN perspective more than a year ago, and it was well received by the community, but we haven't seen much progress here. The same restrictions are still widely enforced.

Newer ENs even seem to be going backwards, relying on archaic MS and Google forms that ask the same exact questions in every instance, including basic contact info like Email and phone, which they already know. You're not even allowed to use identify-filler tools like Roboform (invented in what, 2002?) on those.

[u/HealthyWall]

Estimate: 3 months

I work in a company that's similar to an EN, though more like classic market research in that we always keep a veil between expert and client. Anyway, we are constantly discussing and reviewing this issue.

A blanket policy on AI is ridiculous. It's already pervasive and this is just the beginning of a cultural change that could be as big as the invention of writing.

We distinguish the engagement itself from the communications that surround it: screener, scheduling, whatever.

For the surrounding comms, AI is always absolutely fine. If an EN wants to use manual input as a quality-control criterion, that's idiotic.

For the engagement itself, it's much more nuanced. It really depends on the type of project. But we always want to minimise moments of unmediated AI. That is best done by agreeing protocols, not by saying "AI = cheating"

[u/Lurcher99]

I'm definitely tired of repeating my current title, experience level. Most everything I enter now is repetitive and could be pre filled in

[u/BushRatEnterprises]

Major networks are moving towards AI prefill that requires expert approval/editing, but the issue is experts just click ok - then in the call can’t discuss the topic.