421–430 of 918 posts
That'll truly give the efficiency that these employers crave - let's both speak once our AI counterparts have deemed we're a match.
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…
That said, the other side of the equation is also bad, for employers. I was asked to conduct some interviews recently. I asked the most basic of questions (like absolutely basic stuff, "what is an interface?" level basic). The number of people who said "I don't know" is far less than the number of people who tried to spin stories, make shit up on the fly etc. One guy boasted that he learned programming on his current job (never coded before) and now is a rock star leading a team of 5 people. His confidence was so high, I thought we might have a winner. For the next 20 minutes, he couldn't answer anything, even from his own resume. That is not even the worst part - while leaving, he had the audacity to ask "When can I start?".
Recruiting is broken from all sides. Recruiters working on commission are the worst, but employers and job seekers aren't far behind. I have no clue if this is true in other industries, but in tech it is bad, very bad
Job-seekers are also guilty of this type of thing. I interviewed a candidate for a cyber security position, and it became painfully clear by the end that I was just talking to a ChatGPT proxy the entire time. He wouldn't remember key concepts or technologies when asked, only to "remember" a few minutes later and give a stellar response to the original question. It's an AI arms race... I'm inclined to just regress bac…
Take this entire paragraph and read carefully, and it explains how to kill this trend: > “The truth is, if you want a job, you’re gonna go through this thing,” Adam Jackson, CEO and founder of Braintrust, a company that distributes AI interviewers, tells Fortune. “If there were a large portion of the job-seeking community that were wholesale rejecting this, our clients wouldn’t find the tool useful… This thing would…
Most job seekers don't have the luxury of choice.
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…
Even then, that should take 15 minutes tops!
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.
A handful of guys can effectively rule large groups of people for a long period of time, if the said large group can't unite, can't help each other.
If the employer is allowed to use an AI proxy for their company, does that make it viable for candidates to deploy an AI proxy / avatar to go through the early stage of the process? That'll truly give the efficiency that these employers crave - let's both speak once our AI counterparts have deemed we're a match.
The fun part is that then, the interviews can look way different than today -- e.g. the robot interviewer can demand proofs of the user's skill, etc.
It can even be confidential (ie, robot interviewer user's agent in a black-box room) so that they can share data
Imagine you have a function f(user_profile) -> decision
You can run f in a way that respects the user's privacy (and also hides the details of f from the user).
Companies get ~10x more data from each interviewee
Interviewees don't need to even show up
Sounds like a good deal to me!
Earlier quoted context omitted.
We (the US) had a very successful, carefully designed system that seems to have been an unstable configuration. It was neither hammer and sickle nor single megacorporation: it was balanced on a hill between both. The combination of (1) checks and balances, (2) separation of money, religion, corporation, and government, and (3) regulation in moderation worked pretty well for around 200 years. Monopolies and labor abus…
200 years? And went wrong in 1970? The USA absolutely wasn't a good system in 1770, and has sucked for a lot of people for large fraction of those years. Who could vote was all over the place for a long time: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_voting_rights_in_t... Civil War was about as far from "balanced" as you can get, and the problems weren't even on the axis of "hammer and sickle" vs "single megacorporat…
The USA didn't even notionally exist in 1770, but its pretty clear that the "200 years" thing was intended as 2x10^2 not 2.00x10^2 or even 2.0x10^2.
AI interviews don't make sense when it's each company making the candidate do separate interviews, coz the company isn't spending any human time (no skin in the game) and can easily abuse candidates' time. I think it'd make sense tho if there were shared interviews, e.g. candidate does just one interview for all backend SWE roles (or all SWE roles that use AWS EC2 and Dynamo, or whatever further specialization)... an…
Engineers need to get a license. (IE, you need a license to design a dam.)
For doctors, not only do they need to get a license, in medical school, they go through a matching process that's very efficient: https://med.stanford.edu/news/insights/2024/03/match-day-med...