Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Job-seekers are dodging AI interviewers

fortune.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 918 posts

Re: Job-seekers are dodging AI interviewers

#41

Post by mzhaase »

chii wrote: post #29
pjmlp wrote: post #4

It is all almost making richer even more richer, instead of properly hiring people for HR, AI bots. Instead of having more people at the supermarket, have the customers work as if they were employees, the only thing missing is fetching stuff from warehouse when missing on the shelves, but still pay the same or more. Instead of paying to artists, do job ads using generated AI images with code magically showing off mon…

> they forget people also need money to buy their goods. the goods ought to have become cheaper if the ai/mechanization/industrialization is cheaper than labour. And also when "the rich" have more profit, they now want to spend that profit on things, which spawns new luxury good industries. Of course, the news cycle and the sob stories always revolve around people losing their existing jobs, but there is new jobs aro…

The trickle down effect you mention here is simply not present in the data. Instead, wealth inequality keeps going up.

Re: Job-seekers are dodging AI interviewers

#42

Post by piva00 »

chii wrote: post #29
pjmlp wrote: post #4

It is all almost making richer even more richer, instead of properly hiring people for HR, AI bots. Instead of having more people at the supermarket, have the customers work as if they were employees, the only thing missing is fetching stuff from warehouse when missing on the shelves, but still pay the same or more. Instead of paying to artists, do job ads using generated AI images with code magically showing off mon…

> they forget people also need money to buy their goods. the goods ought to have become cheaper if the ai/mechanization/industrialization is cheaper than labour. And also when "the rich" have more profit, they now want to spend that profit on things, which spawns new luxury good industries. Of course, the news cycle and the sob stories always revolve around people losing their existing jobs, but there is new jobs aro…

> And also when "the rich" have more profit, they now want to spend that profit on things, which spawns new luxury good industries.

Absurd, they spend a fraction of their wealth on luxury goods (an industry which employs very few people anyway), the rest is on assets, keeping them locked into the financial market.

> Of course, the news cycle and the sob stories always revolve around people losing their existing jobs, but there is new jobs around that previously didnt exist. Jobs that people previously never thought was even "a job".

> Of course, it is up to the individual to search and find their niche, and to produce value to sustain their own existence. The advent of AI is not going to be different.

As in any upheaval of the labour market, there will be people who cannot or won't retrain, becoming detached from society. Those usually end up angry, left to their own devices, and lash out politically by voting on demagogues. In the end the whole of society bears the cost, is that really the best way we found to achieve progress? Leave people behind and blame the individual instead of seeking systemic approaches to solve systemic issues?

Re: Job-seekers are dodging AI interviewers

#43

Post by ysofunny »

Mordisquitos wrote: post #10
Garlef wrote: post #5

Maybe we can get a counter-AI that does the AI interview for us?

I had the same thought. The CEO of Braintrust, a company that offers AI interviewers, is quoted as saying “The truth is, if you want a job, you’re gonna go through this thing,” . Let's see how they react to the founding of 'Trainbust', a company offering AI interviewees to respond to AI interviewers. The truth is, if they want to use AI interviewers, they’re gonna have to go through this thing.

the real punchline is how jobs hiring with AI are hiring for positions which require the worker to pretend to be some kind of bot (follow a script, repeating the same actions cyclically)

Re: Job-seekers are dodging AI interviewers

#45

Post by exceptione »

chii wrote: post #29
pjmlp wrote: post #4

It is all almost making richer even more richer, instead of properly hiring people for HR, AI bots. Instead of having more people at the supermarket, have the customers work as if they were employees, the only thing missing is fetching stuff from warehouse when missing on the shelves, but still pay the same or more. Instead of paying to artists, do job ads using generated AI images with code magically showing off mon…

> they forget people also need money to buy their goods. the goods ought to have become cheaper if the ai/mechanization/industrialization is cheaper than labour. And also when "the rich" have more profit, they now want to spend that profit on things, which spawns new luxury good industries. Of course, the news cycle and the sob stories always revolve around people losing their existing jobs, but there is new jobs aro…

> And also when "the rich" have more profit, they now want to spend that profit on things, which spawns new luxury good industries.

That will be a rounding error. Economic growth comes from a large population that spends and innovates.

Wealth concentration buys policy and media, and after that all of sudden the following things happen: tax gap widens, public services deteriorates, innovation halting, etc.

Wealth concentration means the pie will shrink, and eventually the rich will have to fear the super rich. And how do you reach growth after a country is sucked dry?

Re: Job-seekers are dodging AI interviewers

#46

Post by pydry »

chii wrote: post #29
pjmlp wrote: post #4

It is all almost making richer even more richer, instead of properly hiring people for HR, AI bots. Instead of having more people at the supermarket, have the customers work as if they were employees, the only thing missing is fetching stuff from warehouse when missing on the shelves, but still pay the same or more. Instead of paying to artists, do job ads using generated AI images with code magically showing off mon…

> they forget people also need money to buy their goods. the goods ought to have become cheaper if the ai/mechanization/industrialization is cheaper than labour. And also when "the rich" have more profit, they now want to spend that profit on things, which spawns new luxury good industries. Of course, the news cycle and the sob stories always revolve around people losing their existing jobs, but there is new jobs aro…

>And also when "the rich" have more profit, they now want to spend that profit on things

In general those things that "the rich" buy are scarce assets - stocks, housing, land, etc. all of which keep getting bidded up in price. This does not generate jobs.

>spawns new luxury good industries.

Trickle down never worked.

>Of course, the news cycle and the sob stories always revolve around people losing their existing jobs, but there is new jobs around that previously didnt exist. Jobs that people previously never thought was even "a job".

The number of jobs available is politically not technologically determined. AI doesn't automatically destroy jobs in aggregate but this is what the economy is currently programmed to do (via the mechanism of higher interest rates), so this is what companies are chasing with AI.

Re: Job-seekers are dodging AI interviewers

#47

Post by crinkly »

I had AI interview recently and I was a little offended considering the level of position so I decided to go off script and complain about the perception it gave them rather than answering the questions. It neatly transcribed this and sent it to an HR drone who actually called me the next day and apologised as it was new technology that they had decided to use. But it turned out the advertised position didn't exist and they were trying to get someone who was qualified but desperate to take a lower position. Assholes all the way down.

Re: Job-seekers are dodging AI interviewers

#48

Post by grues-dinner »

PicassoCTs wrote: post #6
pjmlp wrote: post #4

It is all almost making richer even more richer, instead of properly hiring people for HR, AI bots. Instead of having more people at the supermarket, have the customers work as if they were employees, the only thing missing is fetching stuff from warehouse when missing on the shelves, but still pay the same or more. Instead of paying to artists, do job ads using generated AI images with code magically showing off mon…

Im half expecting the appearance of virtual people any day. Basically cooperate sponsored UBI - but for bots, so they can buy virtual goods and services, finally decoupling the economy from the desert of the real.

"Societies" (YC25) seems like a good first step! https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44755654

Re: Job-seekers are dodging AI interviewers

#50

Post by CraigJPerry »

chii wrote: post #29
pjmlp wrote: post #4

It is all almost making richer even more richer, instead of properly hiring people for HR, AI bots. Instead of having more people at the supermarket, have the customers work as if they were employees, the only thing missing is fetching stuff from warehouse when missing on the shelves, but still pay the same or more. Instead of paying to artists, do job ads using generated AI images with code magically showing off mon…

> they forget people also need money to buy their goods. the goods ought to have become cheaper if the ai/mechanization/industrialization is cheaper than labour. And also when "the rich" have more profit, they now want to spend that profit on things, which spawns new luxury good industries. Of course, the news cycle and the sob stories always revolve around people losing their existing jobs, but there is new jobs aro…

> the goods ought to have become cheaper

Counter-factual: https://www.tescoplc.com/investors/reports-results-and-prese...

Cost of food up.

Number of employees down (despite number of stores going up)

Profits up.

I'd make an argument here about the desperate need for critical thinking in economics, the typically upside down nature of discourse (topics in economics are often approached with "i must defend what i know" rather than "i must learn what i don't know")... but there's no point. You tellingly said "ought", David Hume warned us about the futility of trying to argue from logic against an ought.

Post reply on HN