Live data from Hacker News

Job-seekers are dodging AI interviewers

fortune.com

261–270 of 918 posts

Re: Job-seekers are dodging AI interviewers

#261

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.

>Nobody said I have to talk to them.

My bank account does.

Seriously though, I don't think this dynamic arises when people have choices, sure, but specifically in the land of job seeking the relationship is brutally asymmetric a lot of the time. People need jobs. One need only to look at the terrible current state of "send us your CV, also fill up our form in our website, also yeah we might sell your info".

If the cost of interviewing drops to close to 0 for a company, we can expect to see interviews being part of the process along with everything else. Juniors have it bad and they might just get it worse.

Re: Job-seekers are dodging AI interviewers

#263

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Give me an AI chatbot over someone with poor English skills reading a script any day of the week. My problem probably isn't unique, it's probably something fairly obvious that was vague in the instructions. Now, the important thing is offer a way to upgrade to a human. But I have no problem at all starting with AI, in fact I honestly prefer it.

At this point I find the humans know so little that an LLM referencing documentation or past support answers is superior.

Re: Job-seekers are dodging AI interviewers

#264
post #209

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's part of the american capitalist dynamic to protect capital by reframing systemic societal problems to be exclusively issues of personal responsibility. It's largely why Americans are so, so fat compared to other nations.

[flagged]

because as we know, people are not influenced by society at all. Every man is an island. Marketing doesn't work. Lobbying doesn't work. Manipulation doesn't work. Nobody gets radicalised.

Re: Job-seekers are dodging AI interviewers

#265

> “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 be chronically underperforming for our clients. And we’re just not seeing that—we’re se…

Woah woah woah woah woah. You've missed the obvious conclusion of what Adam Jackson CEO of Braintrust is saying. The obvious conclusion is that Adam Jackson is a liar. Oh yeah, you would think that this AI slop bucket at the front of our interview process would deter people - but the guy whose stock compensation depends on it working is very happy to lie that it doesn't.

Re: Job-seekers are dodging AI interviewers

#266

What's stopping me from using my own AI to answer their questions?

Nothing. For the employers who are do debased that they would use this sort of tool, they deserve all the cheap low-parameter model outputs one can throw at them.

AI Loopidity is when AI is used to manage AI, like ballooning bullet points to an email which then get reduced to bullet points.

Re: Job-seekers are dodging AI interviewers

#267

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I like the phrase "you can't get an ought from an is", but the word "ought" doesn't always carry moral meaning. If an annoying alarm is beeping and I cut off its power, I might say "it ought to have stopped beeping". That's not a moral opinion, it's invoking a model of how the alarm works and the law of conservation of energy. Here the law of supply and demand is being invoked. Hume needn't get involved.

Why does supply and demand get promoted from a useful, widely applicable model to a universally true law? Supply and demand is a model, not a law.

Conservation of energy is a useful, widely applicable model, not a universally true law, so I think you proved their point.

Re: Job-seekers are dodging AI interviewers

#268
Hard pass. Interviews are two way streets. Sure, the hiring company is the larger of the two but it is a candidate's first impression of your company and their potential future coworkers.

I use AI every day, I build AI in to products at work. I would be on board with an AI assistant to help rate/categorize/summarize job applications, but this is too much.

Unless the expectation is that my coworkers will be mostly AIs, I'd hang up and end the interview probably.

Re: Job-seekers are dodging AI interviewers

#269

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

because as we know, people are not influenced by society at all. Every man is an island. Marketing doesn't work. Lobbying doesn't work. Manipulation doesn't work. Nobody gets radicalised.

[flagged]

Re: Job-seekers are dodging AI interviewers

#270
post #209

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's part of the american capitalist dynamic to protect capital by reframing systemic societal problems to be exclusively issues of personal responsibility. It's largely why Americans are so, so fat compared to other nations.

[flagged]

See also “information desert” and ask yourself why a survival-oriented species might behave in this fashion.

Or don’t, it’s why they do.

Post reply on HN