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

131–140 of 918 posts

Re: Job-seekers are dodging AI interviewers

#131

Post by awakeasleep »

add-sub-mul-div wrote: post #82
TheRoque wrote: post #78

What's preventing job seekers to come up with their own AI avatar job seeker and use it to attend these interviews? I ask this question sincerely because I have no clue how such interview goes, and where is the added value compared to just an automated email

The "added value" is that the use of AI tools is being forced by higher ups who are either earnestly gullible enough to believe they'll be an improvement or are cyncically working towards a future of needing only a small fraction of the current headcount.

OR cynically doing something they know to be pointless because they need to be seen using the latest trends

Re: Job-seekers are dodging AI interviewers

#132

Post by colechristensen »

jghn wrote: post #124
colechristensen wrote: post #117

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My rule for interviews is the company has to spend equal human time or I decline. This means no 8 hour tests, no talking to computers, no special little projects for me to evaluate me. You get equal face time and no more than 45 minutes of me doing anything by myself (that's the max leeway). If you want me to do anything else either I'm getting paid short term contractor rates or making you make a sizable donation to…

I agree with the philosophy although I'll note you're not taking one thing into account. And that is how much human time is spent *reviewing* whatever special little project they assign to you. If the answer is zero, then you're exactly right. However, speaking just for myself as an interviewer, I will generally spend a couple of hours per-candidate reviewing any work samples, etc that are asked of a candidate. If we…

That's what the leeway is for. Two hours per candidate seems like quite a lot of time and is nothing like any of the interviews I have been involved in on either side of the table.

Re: Job-seekers are dodging AI interviewers

#133

Post by dorian-graph »

bthrn wrote: post #125

It's funny how employers try to rationalize this -- take Coinbase, for example: https://www.coinbase.com/blog/how-coinbase-is-embracing-ai-i... > While some worry AI will dehumanize the hiring process, we believe the opposite. Deploying AI will enable more quality interactions, more quickly for the candidates who are the best fit for our jobs– without unnecessary administrative tasks or distractions. We fully believe…

> Let’s face it: the candidates who want to work at Coinbase are as enthusiastic about AI as we are. They, like us, are optimistic about the future of this (and all) technology.

Yet Anthropic didn't want people to use AI as part of interviewing for them.

Re: Job-seekers are dodging AI interviewers

#135

Post by 9rx »

LastTrain wrote: post #84
9rx wrote: 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…

>> except they forget people also need money to buy their goods. >Do they? Yes they absolutely positively really do.

What for?

Re: Job-seekers are dodging AI interviewers

#136

Post by iamnotagenius »

selfhoster11 wrote: post #107
whynotminot wrote: post #96

Earlier quoted context omitted.

$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?

I have stopped using cloud models half a year ago. The meager intelligence local models, ones I can run on my machine, is already giving me a great deal of productivity boost.

Re: Job-seekers are dodging AI interviewers

#137

Post by egypturnash »

TheRoque wrote: post #78

What's preventing job seekers to come up with their own AI avatar job seeker and use it to attend these interviews? I ask this question sincerely because I have no clue how such interview goes, and where is the added value compared to just an automated email

The obvious next step is for the companies offering these AI interviewers to also offer AI interviewees! They can get paid twice for a single interview, it'll be great!

For them. They'll still have to burn all the resources involved in generating two audio/video streams, and analyzing them, of course. And someone's gotta pay for that. And they've gotta make a profit on top of that!

Re: Job-seekers are dodging AI interviewers

#138

Post by ethbr1 »

dorian-graph wrote: post #133
bthrn wrote: post #125

It's funny how employers try to rationalize this -- take Coinbase, for example: https://www.coinbase.com/blog/how-coinbase-is-embracing-ai-i... > While some worry AI will dehumanize the hiring process, we believe the opposite. Deploying AI will enable more quality interactions, more quickly for the candidates who are the best fit for our jobs– without unnecessary administrative tasks or distractions. We fully believe…

> Let’s face it: the candidates who want to work at Coinbase are as enthusiastic about AI as we are. They, like us, are optimistic about the future of this (and all) technology. Yet Anthropic didn't want people to use AI as part of interviewing for them.

This is the answer -- AI interviewers should only get AI agents of candidates.

Re: Job-seekers are dodging AI interviewers

#139

Post by neilv »

MrBrobot wrote: post #103

> 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 conv…

> “This gives me a bad feeling about your company” “But you’re wrong”

"Now you gave me two bad feelings about the company."

Re: Job-seekers are dodging AI interviewers

#140

Post by jijijijij »

colechristensen wrote: post #117
Balgair wrote: post #89

I did one of these once. Once . I felt so bad afterwards that I swore them off forever. It's not like the 'interview' was terrible or anything. I knew it was AI from the start. It was just that when I got done with it, I realized that I had talked at a computer for ~45 minutes. And, yet again, I was going to be ghosted by the company (I was), and that I was never going to get those 45 minutes back. That was time I co…

My rule for interviews is the company has to spend equal human time or I decline. This means no 8 hour tests, no talking to computers, no special little projects for me to evaluate me. You get equal face time and no more than 45 minutes of me doing anything by myself (that's the max leeway). If you want me to do anything else either I'm getting paid short term contractor rates or making you make a sizable donation to…

I think it’s fair, if tests etc. are unconditionally compensated (paid) for the time spent. Some companies do that.
Post reply on HN