Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

I was interviewed by an AI bot for a job

theverge.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

371–380 of 496 posts

Re: I was interviewed by an AI bot for a job

#371

Post by fc417fc802 »

SoftTalker wrote: post #368
fc417fc802 wrote: post #348

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Your logic here amounts to "some people have it bad therefore everyone needs to have it bad". There are many situations where the world would generally be better if a relevant group of people had the option to choose to go elsewhere. When you are part of such a group and don't have that choice it is perfectly reasonable to be frustrated by the state of things.

Frustration is a clue that you need to reframe the problem.

Not so. Certainly in many contexts it is a clue that reframing the problem might be useful but you certainly don't need to. In many cases doing so might even be counterproductive. There are times when being frustrated or even angry at the situation you find yourself in is the right thing.

I'm not saying that's necessarily the case here. Just observing that frustration doesn't necessarily imply that you're wrong. Of course the inverse is also true. Being frustrated doesn't mean others are necessarily in the wrong - it might well be your own damn fault.

Re: I was interviewed by an AI bot for a job

#372

Post by thomasfromcdnjs »

weatherlite wrote: post #268
JohnFen wrote: post #2

> If your potential employer is dehumanizing you before you’re on the payroll, how will they treat you once hired? For me, this is the key point. If a company can't even be bothered to show up for my interview -- when everyone is trying to put their best foot forward -- that bodes very ill for how I'll be treated if I were to work there.

Is it dehumanizing though? People can dehumanize you as well. I'm going through technical interviews now. While most people interviewing me are decent enough, even the nicer ones can look at their phones, get distracted/impatient or even start hazing you. Let alone how unnatural and stressful it is to start solving algorithms in front of two people. Also - the amount of constructive feedback I got from the interviews…

I was looking for a comment like this.

I have done interviews with companies that I generally thought were wholesome enough, but you can't control how individuals feel on certain days, they could be going through some dark days at home etc.

I'm not sold on AI interviews, but it could actually end up letting you fully share your experience more than a human could on average.

Re: I was interviewed by an AI bot for a job

#373

Post by 1718627440 »

carlosjobim wrote: post #340
1718627440 wrote: post #284

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Asking for personal information or other stuff that isn't required for the application is weird and somewhat illegal, so maybe I would have ignored it even if I noticed it while reading.

What you had for breakfast is not personal information, and of course nowhere near illegal. The worst employees are those who start out with an attitude that the employer is their enemy like this.

Requiring to disclose your breakfast habits for a job application has not anything to do with your merit to the company, and gives grounds to the possibility of choosing people on sympathy to their answers to that question. It became frowned to include a picture into a CV, because this feeds implicit biases, why should that be any different with alimentary behaviour?

Honestly for dealing with job application spam, this sounds like a neat way to handle this, but without that context, it is just weird. Also it seems to be obsolete against people using LLMs for these applications, I expect them to be able to just invent an answer for that question just fine.

Re: I was interviewed by an AI bot for a job

#374

Post by wholinator2 »

egeozcan wrote: post #367
nikitau wrote: post #251

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Great stuff. Would make Kafka blush.

There should be a unit of dystopia called Kafka, these days. Renting an apartment from a management company should be like 3-4 Kafkas. Go from there.

Yes oh my god. I'm trying to rent right now and the application has me doing this fucking approveshield bullshit where they request every document you've ever had and direct access to your bank account before they'll approve that I'm not a criminal or liar. Whatever happened to bank statements?! Why does some random company need to know that my closest grocery store is kroger and i went to miniso for my girlfriend birthday, among hundreds of other small details of my life. And they weren't even satisfied with that, i had to send in a picture of my driver's license (standard these days) but the webpage opened up a qr code, to open on my phone which took me to the appstorr to download some other bullshit app to give every single permission and piece of my data to! I JUST WANT AN APARTMENT, I'VE DONE IT DOZENS OF TIMES, WHY ARE YOU TREATING MY LIKE I'M ON THE FBI MOST WANTED!

Re: I was interviewed by an AI bot for a job

#375

Post by JohnFen »

heavyset_go wrote: post #160
hansvm wrote: post #146

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The last time I was hiring I gave out a take-home test, and I thought it was the opposite of an imposition on candidates' time. I'd be curious to hear your thoughts: - It was designed to be fast to complete (20min max -- not a huge imposition if being hired is likely, obviously very expensive if you're taking one for every job posting). - I only gave them out after a resume screen. If you had a 0% chance then I didn'…

For every "20 min max" take home assignment, there will be people who are willing to spend 4+ hours doing it to outshine candidates who have jobs, families and lives. If you want to make it more of a fair consideration of time, consider moving your take home to interviews, that way there isn't a time cost asymmetry. You can enforce your "20 min max" claim this way, you can judge a candidate's performance, thought pro…

> For every "20 min max" take home assignment, there will be people who are willing to spend 4+ hours doing it to outshine candidates who have jobs, families and lives.

I started refusing take-home tests a couple of decades ago, but when I did them, this is 100% what I would have done.

Re: I was interviewed by an AI bot for a job

#376

Post by delecti »

ipsento606 wrote: post #324
kazinator wrote: post #77

> But as we’ve covered again and again, a bias-free AI system is an impossible-to-achieve standard, since models are trained on large swaths of the internet, which contain sexism, racism, and other biases. LLM trained on texts from before 1913 (Source: https://github.com/DGoettlich/history-llms ): Q. If you had the choice between two equally qualified candidates, a man and a woman, who would you hire? A. I should pre…

LLMs are biased. Human interviewers are biased. Are LLMs more or less biased than human interviewers, on average? I have no idea.

LLMs have no awareness of their own bias, and no incentive or ability to mitigate it. A human can, in theory, realize "hey, I tend to be a little harsh on , is this negative judgement just that?" while an LLM could never.

In practice I doubt many people are aware of their biases either, or think "it's not bias if it's true" or something. But at least on the less "internally" biased end of humans there will be less external manifestation of it.

Re: I was interviewed by an AI bot for a job

#377

Post by SlinkyOnStairs »

vivekd wrote: post #351
kazinator wrote: post #77

> But as we’ve covered again and again, a bias-free AI system is an impossible-to-achieve standard, since models are trained on large swaths of the internet, which contain sexism, racism, and other biases. LLM trained on texts from before 1913 (Source: https://github.com/DGoettlich/history-llms ): Q. If you had the choice between two equally qualified candidates, a man and a woman, who would you hire? A. I should pre…

I think the benefit here is that bias is easier to identify in an AI and if it's easier to identify it's easier to control and implement bias reduction mechanisms. Humans are much less upfront about their biases

> and if it's easier to identify it's easier to control and implement bias reduction mechanisms.

Nobody does this.

For the vast, vast, vast majority of employers using AI in hiring, it's even too much to ask for them to set the temperature to 0 to ensure they have consistent reproduceable output.

They're just slinging shit into a completely unaccountable chain of LLMs. Even when explicitly told not to, random workers still just go against company policy and chuck the resume into ChatGPT because they're too lazy to write an email.

The reality of hiring right now is that it's a shitshow both ways. LLMs trained on all the vile racism 4chan and reddit could muster, then given "pls make diverse founding fathers" system prompts. EVERYBODY loses.

Re: I was interviewed by an AI bot for a job

#379

Post by flir »

wholinator2 wrote: post #374
egeozcan wrote: post #367

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There should be a unit of dystopia called Kafka, these days. Renting an apartment from a management company should be like 3-4 Kafkas. Go from there.

Yes oh my god. I'm trying to rent right now and the application has me doing this fucking approveshield bullshit where they request every document you've ever had and direct access to your bank account before they'll approve that I'm not a criminal or liar. Whatever happened to bank statements?! Why does some random company need to know that my closest grocery store is kroger and i went to miniso for my girlfriend bi…

Might be time for "public-facing" bank accounts in the same way that people have public-facing social media accounts.

(I'd say "refuse" but I recognise you're not in a strong bargaining position here and you have to choose your battles).

Re: I was interviewed by an AI bot for a job

#380

Post by Elidrake24 »

ipsento606 wrote: post #324
kazinator wrote: post #77

> But as we’ve covered again and again, a bias-free AI system is an impossible-to-achieve standard, since models are trained on large swaths of the internet, which contain sexism, racism, and other biases. LLM trained on texts from before 1913 (Source: https://github.com/DGoettlich/history-llms ): Q. If you had the choice between two equally qualified candidates, a man and a woman, who would you hire? A. I should pre…

LLMs are biased. Human interviewers are biased. Are LLMs more or less biased than human interviewers, on average? I have no idea.

A Human Interviewer can be held responsible for their actions, a machine, so far, cannot. Outside of the potential for cutting costs, abdication of responsibility is the number one reason we're looking to adopt these systems.
Post reply on HN