Live data from Hacker News

Job-seekers are dodging AI interviewers

fortune.com

91–100 of 918 posts

Re: Job-seekers are dodging AI interviewers

#91

Earlier quoted context omitted.

At least one of my local, out of town, supermarkets doesn't have a warehouse any more. It's all Just in Time, with a residual amount above the main shelves. If you can't find what you want, they don't have it 'out back', because apart from an unloading area, there's no 'out back'.

It sounds... amazing? Less stockpile and spoilage. Less carbon footprint from transportation.

JIT shipping doesn't necessarily mean less carbon footprint from transportation. A single large shipment is far more efficient than many small shipments.

Re: Job-seekers are dodging AI interviewers

#92
post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> the only thing missing is fetching stuff from warehouse Amateurs, IKEA solved that one decades ago ;) But that's Scandinavian practicality or whatever they use to sell themselves these days :)

When IKEA does it it’s good because IKEA is European.

*because ikea is cheap.

Crucial element in GPs complaint was lack of passing on savings to consumers.

Re: Job-seekers are dodging AI interviewers

#95
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…

> except they forget people also need money to buy their goods. this is why we having population collapse

We don't, fertility rate is 2.24 which is with curent medical advancement is above replacement rate.

Re: Job-seekers are dodging AI interviewers

#96
post #83

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Counterpoint: AI in its current form is democratizing and allowing exactly the not rich to be relatively more dangerous. So yeah, the rich might use it to get richer. But so can everyone* else.

> AI in its current form is democratizing and allowing exactly the not rich to be relatively more dangerous. Which part exactly ? The part where everyone pays 20+ a month to a few megacorps or the part where we willingly upload all our thoughts to a central server ?

$20 a month for a nearly unlimited stream of high intelligence isn’t really undemocratic imo

Re: Job-seekers are dodging AI interviewers

#97
post #21
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…

on one hand people complain about sweatshops but on the other hand when the repetitive, soul crushing, low paid job is replaced by technology people complain as well. you can't have it both ways.

People would rather have a low pay repetitive job and be able to barely afford living rather than no job at all and being homeless

Also the "people" of the beginning of your sentence aren't the same people as the "people" in the end of your sentence. People complain about min wage repetitive jobs but it still beats being homeless

Re: Job-seekers are dodging AI interviewers

#98
post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> the only thing missing is fetching stuff from warehouse Amateurs, IKEA solved that one decades ago ;) But that's Scandinavian practicality or whatever they use to sell themselves these days :)

When IKEA does it it’s good because IKEA is European.

Pre COVID, IKEA had a lot of decent value stuff (prices were low, relatively better built items too, relative to the other stock). There were also plenty of staff on the tills and on the shop floor to ask questions or get assistance.

You genuinely felt they passed on the savings

They also had decent online shopping.

These days though they're just like everyone else and have cut cut cut and prices have risen. The restaurant has gone to crap too

Re: Job-seekers are dodging AI interviewers

#99
post #73
post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> except they forget people also need money to buy their goods. Do they? Money is simply the accounting of debt. You do something for me, and when I can't immediately do something in return for you, you extend a loan to me so that I can make good on my side of the bargain later. If we record that I owe you something at some point in the future, we just created money! But if I don't need anything from you — because, s…

Ok so let’s see You need a roof over your head and some food to eat But whoops, no one is willing to pay you enough to do that. This was already in 2013: https://www.cbsnews.com/news/80-percent-of-us-adults-face-ne... And this is now: https://www.acainternational.org/news/2024-paycheck-to-paych...

> You need a roof over your head and some food to eat

The magical AI will (hypothetically) provide this for you.

> But whoops, no one is willing to pay you enough to do that.

You seem confused. The question wasn't posed from the perspective of those who don't have the magical AI.

Re: Job-seekers are dodging AI interviewers

#100
post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes it is. What you're conveniently forgetting is that governments and banks (which are kind-of government, except profits go to private hands) think this is a very, very, very, VERY good thing indeed. Why? Well, what is wealth inequality? It is people and companies (indirectly also people) not spending money. Just keeping it. "For the future". In bank accounts. On the stock market. In government bonds. Under their p…

>this is a way for the poor to get more stuff now. Ummm, what? That’s not how inequality works.

Government spending benefits everyone. Which means it effectively doesn't benefit the rich much at all. Hence ...
Post reply on HN