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

201–210 of 496 posts

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

#201

Post by yumraj »

On one hand companies are laying off people, because AI

then, companies are hiring fewer people, because AI

so, while in theory this does sound like a reasonable startup idea that makes sense on paper, should we really be optimizing in such a way, as opposed to making sure that we're hiring the best possible set of people.

I'm pretty sure, at least at the moment, only the most desperate will tolerate such process. The IVRs have become annoying enough that I occasionally find myself cursing while dealing with them, I'll definitely fail such an interview.

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

#203

Post by SchemaLoad »

bluefirebrand wrote: post #97
suzzer99 wrote: post #91

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I got dinged on my Netflix take home 10 years ago because I used the DOM to store state instead of implementing a shadow DOM. Sure, let me just whip that right up.

Outstanding. I've done quite a few interviews and as long as the interviewee maybe said something like "it would be better to use a shadow DOM" and could explain what a shadow DOM is, I would be pretty happy with that Expecting someone to build a full shadow DOM as part of their interview take home is excessive

Often you don't even get to the interview step. One time I had a take home that said you could either do frontend only, backend only, or full stack. I decided to pick the backend only one and complete all of the optional backend tasks to make something pretty well made.

Then they email me back and said the other candidate did the whole thing and they aren't sure if I know how to style a page now because I only completed the backend part.

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

#204

Post by bitwize »

nitwit005 wrote: post #106
bluefirebrand wrote: post #97

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Outstanding. I've done quite a few interviews and as long as the interviewee maybe said something like "it would be better to use a shadow DOM" and could explain what a shadow DOM is, I would be pretty happy with that Expecting someone to build a full shadow DOM as part of their interview take home is excessive

Often times people ding you for doing anything different than they're used to, or what they see as "the standard". The worst is when they basically ask how you'd build their product. Some people can't handle a different answer, even as they're busy hiring you to improve things.

This. No hire if, when asked an open-ended question, the candidate does not namedrop unprompted the components of the company's actual production tech stack. Clearly they're not knowledgeable about the engineering aspects of the job and are just bluffing their way through the interview process.

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

#206

Post by seer »

hansvm wrote: post #153
tharkun__ wrote: post #135

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Using AI for what and is it bad or good? At this point, we think using AI and being able to use AI effectively is a skill in and of itself. When you're hired, you'll have access to AI. You'd be expected to be able to use said AI effectively. So, we still give you a FizzBuzz. You can use AI. Even if we told you not to use AI, we know almost everyone would use AI. But you have to understand the FizzBuzz and be able to…

It's been a year since I've actively given out take-homes for hiring, but I'm not sure I agree that everyone will use AI. I designed half the questions to be impossible for current-gen AI to answer without the candidate actually knowing what's going on [0], and only ~1% of candidates who responded did poorly on that half and not the other half (and, if we're worried about LLMs being better than I think, not all that…

Thanks for clarifying - I kinda get the idea but would love to see an example for this.

I’ve mostly given up on all of the standard techniques for interviewing sadly, just because “using ai” makes a lot of them trivial, and have resorted to the good old fashioned interview, where I screen for drive, values and root cause seeking, and let people learn tech/frameworks/etc themselves.

But I was wondering, isn’t a take home question still good, if you give a more open ended and ambitious task, and let people vibe code the solution, review the result but ask for the prompt/session as well?

People will be doing that during normal work anyway, so why not test that directly?

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

#207

Post by shakehar »

AnotherGoodName wrote: post #172
skeuomorphism wrote: post #95

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is more or less the go-to standard in the usa. One property manager handles possibly hundreds in an association, or dozens of townhomes, and will refuse to speak to you directly, except through a maintenance request system. Its incredibly depressing

The electrical panel beeps an alarm constantly. Sent an email to the property management company. Guy comes over and presses a button to silence it for 24 hours. Rinse repeat for months on end. No method of escalation beyond the automatic replying inbox. I’m fine. twitch twitch Welcome to 21st century distopia!

Call your fire department on their non emergency line and report this.

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

#208

Post by Nursie »

tdeck wrote: post #193
YesBox wrote: post #88

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Applicants are using AI too. I've heard from people who hire/post jobs that they gets hundreds to low thousands of applications, and maybe 5% of them have any relevant experience. The problem is the breakdown of trust is costing all of us.

> Applicants are using AI too. I've heard from people who hire/post jobs that they gets hundreds to low thousands of applications, and maybe 5% of them have any relevant experience. This happened before "AI" too. When all it takes is clicking an "apply now" button on LinkedIn some desperate people will spam any job they see.

And in some places they are incentivised to do so, as they may need to prove a certain number of applications per-week, or they'll lose unemployment benefits, so they end up applying to all sorts of unsuitable stuff.

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

#209

Post by rk06 »

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.

I think this is a bit unreasonable. there are a lot of people applying to every job post. if a company can use AI to better filter the candidates, then it is an improvement.

there is issue only if AI is encoded with human bias, but treated as neutral and impartial judge

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

#210

Post by seer »

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…

Live coding during an interview is one of the most oppressive things I’ve witnessed in the industry in general.

There is usually a huge disconnect between someone who knows that “this task should take 20mins” and doing it cold in a super high-pressure environment.

People sweat, panic, brain freeze, and are just plain out stressed.

I’ll only OK something like this if we give out a similar but not the same task before the interview so a person can train a bit beforehand.

I’ve heard it all justified as “we want to see how you perform under pressure” but to me that has always sounded super flimsy - like if this is representative of how work is done at this organisation, then do I want to work there in the first place? And if it isn’t, why the hell are you putting people through this ringer in the first place, just sounds inhumane.

Post reply on HN