231–240 of 918 posts
Can I let my AI chat bot do the interview for me? I want to filter out all of the crap companies before I commit my time to actually talking to them.
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.
They aren't penalized at all for lying, and not lying is a massive loss of potential profit. So then, why not lie, is their logic.
> 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…
The power imbalance is already so far tipped to the employer side. This verbiage doesn't even consider the applicant a human with time worth saving or worth having meaningful conversations!
Earlier quoted context omitted.
We don't, fertility rate is 2.24 which is with curent medical advancement is above replacement rate.
Not all countries are at 2.24 -- USA is at 1.62, so whether correlation or causation, many developed countries are nowhere near the replacement rate. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_total_f...
And Afghanistan is at 4.66
> developed countries are nowhere near the replacement rate
Doesn't matter because of the immigration. Population of developed countries is growing.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Please give me an example of what happens. Edit: before someone throws very strong platitudes at me again, I would like to see real-world examples. Because at least in my lifetime there have been zero consequences for people in power. Edit 2: I've been banned from replying to this thread (lol, talk about power of the state). I guess I didn't define my acceptance criteria properly. But I thought it would be clear that…
When it goes on just a little too long, it can result in the French Revolution and 1917 and the election of populist candidates with unexpected consequences. So sure, not a given, but it’s a risk that goes up as conditions get worse.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>this is a way for the poor to get more stuff now. Ummm, what? That’s not how inequality works.
Government spending benefits everyone. Which means it effectively doesn't benefit the rich much at all. Hence ...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It surprises me that the monied elite seem to have so little awareness of what happens when they keep winning.
Please give me an example of what happens. Edit: before someone throws very strong platitudes at me again, I would like to see real-world examples. Because at least in my lifetime there have been zero consequences for people in power. Edit 2: I've been banned from replying to this thread (lol, talk about power of the state). I guess I didn't define my acceptance criteria properly. But I thought it would be clear that…
It’s easy to forget after 80 years of stable western democracies, but brutal equilibrium shifts do happen. There was a revolution every ~20 years in Europe between 1789 and 1917. And even during the 20th century, the history of much of the world is full of coups, revolts, and uprisings. See all the revolutions in ex-soviet republics, the Arab spring, etc.
So you can pick and choose between the American independence, the French Revolution, the revolutions of 1848, the Commune, and the soviets, to give you just a couple of examples for which you can find some documentation easily.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Please give me an example of what happens. Edit: before someone throws very strong platitudes at me again, I would like to see real-world examples. Because at least in my lifetime there have been zero consequences for people in power. Edit 2: I've been banned from replying to this thread (lol, talk about power of the state). I guess I didn't define my acceptance criteria properly. But I thought it would be clear that…
Some very close haircuts.
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…
This basically aligns with my thoughts on this as well. With a human interviewer the company is indicating some level of seriousness by having a person they are paying invest at least an equal amount of time in the interview that you are investing as a candidate, because they must be present in person for the interview. AI "interviewers" create another power asymmetry by forcing candidates to invest more actual time…
I mean, strictly speaking, the AI interviewer is a net positive, as on the whole, it reduces the time humans take to do something. But only if they keep the same 'interview' rate as before. Not likely.
However, I agree with you here too. It's the damned reciprocity of it all. For me, it was that I knew (and was proven correct) that the AI interview was pointless; that I was talking at the void. The company never got back to me outside of the standard form email. It never mattered if I wore a suit to the interview and minded my manners or if I was naked and screaming obscenities in the 'interview'. Likely my face and voice will now be used in some training dataset against my wishes after some EULA gets changed without my notice. It's so denigrating. I'll never apply there again, even if they get rid of the AI interviews, it's left such a bad taste in my mouth.