181–190 of 918 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
> 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…
Same argument for removing customer service with chatbots or AI. It's entirely untrue, and creates a much worse customer experience, but because people drop out your KPIs / NPS is based off of people who were willing to put up with shit to get to a real human.
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…
"While some worry AI will dehumanize the hiring process, we believe the opposite." "AI will create jobs instead of destroying them." "AI will solve the climate crisis despite doubling or tripling humanity's energy footprint." At some point it became acceptable to lie to the public with a straight face.
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 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?
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…
That is the real definition of "AGI" from the VCs shilling all of this rather than their bullshit utopian definition.
> Gotta watch out for those profits, except they forget people also need money to buy their goods.
They (companies) do not care.
And that's why lots of bunkers for the executives are being built in anticipation of any civil unrest.
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…
This is prime HR style lying. The response is: Problem statement. Claim that reality is the opposite of the problem statement, with no justification given, despite obvious evidence to the contrary. Statement that if reality doesn't match their claim, the worker is at fault. End of statement. Dystopian, infuriating, unethical and immoral.
Look at the language Coinbase uses. Only their view is a "belief." The opposing view is a "worry." Others are motivated by fear. Only holy Coinbase is motivated by love!
This is, of course, doublethink. We all know that removing humans from the hiring process is, by definition, dehumanizing.
Coinbase's article would have been more palatable if it were truthful:
> Some believe AI will dehumanize the hiring process. We agree, and we're SO excited about that! I mean, we aren't in this business to make friends. We're in it to make cold, hard cash. And the less we have to interact with boring, messy human beings along the way, the better! If you're cold, calculating and transactional like us, sign on the dotted line, and let's make some dough!
But if they were that truthful, fun, and straightforward, they'd probably be more social, and they wouldn't have this dehumanizing hiring process to begin with.
I feel like HR culture is to deliberately insert as much indignity as possible, into the process. HR is really all about being the "top dog," in the relationship. They don't want employees to have any agency.
I saw the company that I worked for, for almost 27 years, change. It was fairly slow. When I first joined, I felt as if they really wanted me. It was an honor, and I accepted a lower salary, because I really wanted to be part of a world-class organization, and that my work would make a difference.
By the time I left, I saw HR treating candidates like shit (I was a hiring manager, and saw it firsthand). I was a bit disappointed that candidates actually seemed to accept this treatment, but the culture has changed all around.
But the current climate, where even the most innocuous job opening gets spammed with -literally- thousands of unqualified (and sometimes outright faked) CVs, is a real problem.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
I had AI interview recently and I was a little offended considering the level of position so I decided to go off script and complain about the perception it gave them rather than answering the questions. It neatly transcribed this and sent it to an HR drone who actually called me the next day and apologised as it was new technology that they had decided to use. But it turned out the advertised position didn't exist a…