Job-seekers are dodging AI interviewers • Hacker News Board

Re: Job-seekers are dodging AI interviewers

#101

Post by gchamonlive » Mon, Aug 04, 2025, 1:47 PM UTC

9rx wrote: post #52

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…

> 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…

Sure if AI could make small communities autonomous and provide everyone with everything they would ever need, there would be no need for money.

But we are far away from this utopia, this utopia will require a ton of energy to be produced just to run the AI supervision layer, so hopefully by then we'd have fusion energy or something else figures out, and to achieve this utopia there will be a transition period.

I am actually worried about the transition period in your fictional world. Some people will be replaced long before the deprecation of money. It's a lot of people that is going to suffer from extreme poverty if we don't think this right, which I believe is what the OP comment was about.

Re: Job-seekers are dodging AI interviewers

#102

Post by jghn » Mon, Aug 04, 2025, 1:48 PM UTC

From both sides of the table, I have a strict philosophy that the candidate's time is the more valuable commodity.

Thus in any situation where a company is offloading internal effort but still requiring the candidate to put in time & effort, that's a company I would not want to work for. This is the ultimate expression of that bullcrap.

Re: Job-seekers are dodging AI interviewers

#103

Post by MrBrobot » Mon, Aug 04, 2025, 1:48 PM UTC

> Candidates tell Fortune that AI interviewers make them feel unappreciated to the point where they’d rather skip out on potential job opportunities, reasoning the company’s culture can’t be great if human bosses won’t make the time to interview them. But HR experts argue the opposite; since AI interviewers can help hiring managers save time in first-round calls, the humans have more time to have more meaningful conversations with applicants down the line. “This gives me a bad feeling about your company” “But you’re wrong”

Re: Job-seekers are dodging AI interviewers

#104

Post by assword » Mon, Aug 04, 2025, 1:49 PM UTC

pjmlp wrote: post #63

9rx wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, why? If people still want other people to do things for them, accounting isn't going anywhere. It has already been invented. We don't have to un-invent it. But, if this our future, then humans remain relevant, so there is no concern about job loss or anything of that nature. If, however, some future plays out where people aren't needed to work anymore, there will simply be no need for trade. The magical AIs, or w…

Time to fight for fertile land then.

[flagged]

Re: Job-seekers are dodging AI interviewers

#105

Post by siva7 » Mon, Aug 04, 2025, 1:49 PM UTC

spwa4 wrote: post #66

pjmlp wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

One such kind of jobs have leaders like in those mythical Robin Hood stories. Those jobs certainly never go out of fashion, as seen in poorer world regions, where you as well say, people find new jobs all the time.

You mean having 10.000 servants for a few rich people, their families and government institutions? Yeah, real fun jobs, those.

Literally happening in india.

Re: Job-seekers are dodging AI interviewers

#106

Post by reactordev » Mon, Aug 04, 2025, 1:49 PM UTC

spwa4 wrote: post #100

reactordev wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>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 ...

Government spending is going to get choked out from the middle class and lower class not having any money. You think the rich pay taxes?

Re: Job-seekers are dodging AI interviewers

#107

Post by selfhoster11 » Mon, Aug 04, 2025, 1:50 PM UTC

whynotminot wrote: post #96

lm28469 wrote: post #83

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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

To call GPT-4o high intelligence, is aspirational (to put it more plainly: GPT-4o is such a bad model it's not worth paying for compared to what's out there). And yes, it is undemocratic - when was the last time you got a say over what the AI is allowed to do for you, let alone a say over any of the ideas for how to improve it?

Re: Job-seekers are dodging AI interviewers

#108

Post by btreesOfSpring » Mon, Aug 04, 2025, 1:50 PM UTC

doctor_radium wrote: post #17

Shrug. I thought most HR people already are bots, and it's been this way for roughly the last 20 years.

Reminds me of the time I wasn't passed on an interview for a product I was part of the pre-release testing team but I didn't have enough year's of experience with the tech for the job. I'm guessing it was just an excuse to say I wasn't getting the job but it has forever given me the ick with HR tech pre screen interviews.

Re: Job-seekers are dodging AI interviewers

#109

Post by 6031769 » Mon, Aug 04, 2025, 1:51 PM UTC

whynotminot wrote: post #96

lm28469 wrote: post #83

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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

"High intelligence"? Excuse me while I ROFL.

Re: Job-seekers are dodging AI interviewers

#110

Post by card_zero » Mon, Aug 04, 2025, 1:52 PM UTC

CraigJPerry wrote: post #50

chii wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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"…

I like the phrase "you can't get an ought from an is", but the word "ought" doesn't always carry moral meaning. If an annoying alarm is beeping and I cut off its power, I might say "it ought to have stopped beeping". That's not a moral opinion, it's invoking a model of how the alarm works and the law of conservation of energy. Here the law of supply and demand is being invoked. Hume needn't get involved.