Job-seekers are dodging AI interviewers • Hacker News Board

Re: Job-seekers are dodging AI interviewers

#171

Post by javcasas » Mon, Aug 04, 2025, 2:32 PM UTC

inanutshellus wrote: post #147

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 only people that should pass this interview are those that build an AI response bot to pass the test for them. Then we can both get to talking human-to-human."

> Then we can both get to talking human-to-human.

No. That's when you get to talk to my second AI.

Re: Job-seekers are dodging AI interviewers

#172

Post by AnimalMuppet » Mon, Aug 04, 2025, 2:32 PM UTC

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…

The key is skin in the game. If a human interviews me, if they're wasting my time, they're also wasting their own. So they have some incentive not to do that. But if an AI interviews me, the humans have no incentive not to waste my time.

You want to have an AI interview me? No. It can interview my AI agent if you want, but not me. You want to interview me? Put a human on the line.

Re: Job-seekers are dodging AI interviewers

#173

Post by delta_p_delta_x » Mon, Aug 04, 2025, 2:33 PM UTC

throwawayoldie wrote: post #165

siva7 wrote: post #114

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Somehow i would rather stay homeless or prostitute myself than throwing my dignity away by letting an a.i. assess me over the whole job interview. Yet this is where we are heading. Being graded by openai (and co). Iris scanned by openai. Who knows what comes next..

It's where we're headed _if we let these assholes get away with it_. They have the money and guns, but we have the numbers.

The sickle and hammer looking real interesting now.

Re: Job-seekers are dodging AI interviewers

#174

Post by throwawayoldie » Mon, Aug 04, 2025, 2:33 PM UTC

danaris wrote: post #61

lemoncookiechip wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Decades and decades of unfettered Capitalism. - Labor protections getting weaker over time, plus courts usually siding with employers. Overtime laws got chipped away, and a lot of folks get called "contractors" when they're basically employees. - Jobs can move overseas way easier now, so workers don't really have the same leverage they used to. - Big companies buying everything up, regional monopolies forming, and th…

And, as usual, you can trace the majority of this back to Reagan. Busting unions, vilifying poor people, weakening and removing regulations, and (very crucially) changing the basic philosophy behind antitrust.

90% of the time, the answer is "Ronald Reagan". Most of the remaining 10%, the answer is "Jack Welch".

Re: Job-seekers are dodging AI interviewers

#175

Post by AnimalMuppet » Mon, Aug 04, 2025, 2:33 PM UTC

throwawayoldie wrote: post #165

siva7 wrote: post #114

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Somehow i would rather stay homeless or prostitute myself than throwing my dignity away by letting an a.i. assess me over the whole job interview. Yet this is where we are heading. Being graded by openai (and co). Iris scanned by openai. Who knows what comes next..

It's where we're headed _if we let these assholes get away with it_. They have the money and guns, but we have the numbers.

Unless it's a government job, the interviewers don't have guns. They just have money. Nobody said I have to talk to them.

Re: Job-seekers are dodging AI interviewers

#176

Post by syngrog66 » Mon, Aug 04, 2025, 2:34 PM UTC

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…

Coinbase is a biz built by people willing to sell shovels to the cryptocurrency speculators. They've already filtered themselves as folks with questionable morals. They're like a cigarette manufaturer.

Re: Job-seekers are dodging AI interviewers

#177

Post by AnimalMuppet » Mon, Aug 04, 2025, 2:36 PM UTC

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 interesting. My expectation was that, if I did a four-hour assignment, they were going to spend 5 minutes evaluating it.

I wonder if you are typical, or if typical is closer to my 5 minute impression?

Re: Job-seekers are dodging AI interviewers

#178

Post by lm28469 » Mon, Aug 04, 2025, 2:36 PM UTC

Majestic121 wrote: post #154

lm28469 wrote: post #90

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Amazing until covid hits and everything is out of stock at t+ 5 minutes. Every major city is like 24 hours away from MAJOR riots if anything serious happens to the supply chain.

COVID happened though, and shortages of commodities were extremely temporary, with no dire consequences overall. What was actually unavailable with dire consequences, like masks/etc... was not unavailable due to lean manufacturing, but simply because it was a new demand that did not exist at this scale before.

covid was nothing. Try a few bombs on the major highways and airport runways, now you have to deal with a war AND your entire capital starving. Millions of people will go from somewhat civilised to starvation mode real quick. All in all covid was a blip on the radar. There is a huge different between just in time and even a month of stock

> What was actually unavailable with dire consequences, like masks/etc... was not unavailable due to lean manufacturing, but simply because it was a new demand that did not exist at this scale before.

Well yeah that's what stocks are for. France had hundred millions of masks in stock in the early 2009 because they were expecting H1N1, we scraped the project because the pandemic didn't hit as bad as we thought, fast forward 10 years later and we spent twice as much to get half as many masks

Wait until ww3, Europe will discover that having one week of ammunition stock is not enough... all of that is expensive so let's not plan anything and pray for the best case scenario

Re: Job-seekers are dodging AI interviewers

#179

Post by jghn » Mon, Aug 04, 2025, 2:36 PM UTC

colechristensen wrote: post #132

jghn wrote: post #124

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I would agree that it's not typical. However I firmly believe that it is imperative for interviewers to treat the candidate as the more valuable commodity. As such, I will spend a fair amount of time per-candidate as I know they themselves are investing a good bit of their own time & energy.

Re: Job-seekers are dodging AI interviewers

#180

Post by fxtentacle » Mon, Aug 04, 2025, 2:37 PM UTC

"for high-volume hiring like [..] entry-level tech roles, we’re just seeing this more and more…"

Maybe that's your problem right there. If you treat entry-level tech roles as a high-volume hiring market, you're going to end up with negative team productivity, which leads to revenue loss, which leads to budget cuts, which leads to more high-volume hiring.