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

271–280 of 496 posts

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

#271

Post by nicbou »

dice wrote: post #76
eikenberry wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Small companies are an obvious 3rd place to escape to and there should be a good number of them given all the big companies behave as you indicate.. unless it really hard to start a new business in India. Do you know if this is the case or why else wouldn't you consider small businesses as a alternative?

I'm hiring at a small company and it's a nightmare. 1,000+ applicants for a software engineering position and we have essentially no help from recruiting. I'm filtering based on keywords, giving each resume a max of 90 seconds, and anything that even slightly seems off gets rejected. I only have the bandwidth to talk to a couple 10s of candidates since I have the entire rest of my job to do, so I can see the appeal o…

I used a simple “tell me what you had for breakfast” line to filter out people who don’t read. It required no work from the applicant but filtered out some of the spam. I wonder if an AI-resistant version could be made.

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

#272

Post by roenxi »

9rx wrote: post #270
roenxi wrote: post #266

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Affordability requires something to exist. Ok so jumping back to applies, say I have an apple and Mr A and Mr B want it. I'm going to give the apple to the person who pays me the most money. To keep it simple, this is the only apple. Maybe I've drawn a smiley face on it to make it an artwork, maybe there has been a breakout of Apple Plague, I dunno. How do you square that with this conception of affordability? Sinc…

> I'm going to give the apple to the person who pays me the most money. Right. Purely a social construct. You are enabled to make that choice because Mr A and Mr B also believe you should be able to make that choice. But what if they stop believing? Consider that Mr A and Mr B now believe the Mr B has the devine right to the last remaining apple. Do you think they are going to continue to respect that you want the mo…

> But what if they stop believing?

That is what I'm asking you. Are you saying that you just want to use a different word capture the idea that only one person can have the apple? Because instead of saying Mr A can't afford the apple you're saying that Mr A can't have the apple because of a divine right ... that looks a lot like it has the same implications as affordability.

The social construct you're pointing at is the labelling of the situation rather than the underlying physics of the situation, is where I'm going with this. If scarcity is a factor, then affordability exists as a reality. You can relabel it as a social construct, but you can't escape the real world.

> Do you mean like if you attempted to take oil that isn't considered to be yours that an army will roll in and destroy you?

I mean that more than the social limits, the real limits are the bigger part of why I can't do what I want with oil.

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

#273

Post by ph4rsikal »

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.

"dehumanizing"?

What is human about a career website where you can upload your document and answer questions about your sex life, race, religion, and gender?

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

#274

Post by Mario9382 »

hansvm wrote: post #146
nitwit005 wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

To me the issue isn't seeming inhuman, but cost. Employers often seem happy to impose rediculous time costs on the people they're hiring: take home tests, long series of interviews, etc. What held that back is they also paid a price. Full automation leaves them free to impose infinite cost with no guarantee of anything.

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'…

20 minutes max seems fair to me. For context I was once given a 1 week assignment just to be discarded without any feedback. From then on if it takes more than a day I won't do it.

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

#275

Post by 7bit »

rk06 wrote: post #209
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

You're completely wrong.

"better" is an objective evaluation that you can do in a test, not in an interview with an AI.

And AIs always have human bias encoded, because it's trained on human data. That's a well known problem with no absolute solution.

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

#276

Post by jclulow »

ryandrake wrote: post #239
Eisenstein wrote: post #174

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Whatever that panel is responsible for, that thing isn't working properly, its just set to be silent temporarily. Find out what regulatory body in your town deals with that panel's responsibility, contact them telling them that of the issue and say that you have contacted them when you submit your next ticket.

...and deal with that regulatory body's automated bot response. Customer service is bots all the way down.

I had some serious struggles with the delinquent landlord and property owners, and the dangerously incompetent builders that plagued our building in Alameda for years. While they were not always legally empowered to come and stop the skulduggery, the Alameda city council offices of planning and compliance were the only people who consistently and professionally responded to phone calls and emails and were available if you went to their offices. People complain about public servants, but at least in Alameda they were really good people doing their best.

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

#277

Post by 9rx »

roenxi wrote: post #272
9rx wrote: post #270

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I'm going to give the apple to the person who pays me the most money. Right. Purely a social construct. You are enabled to make that choice because Mr A and Mr B also believe you should be able to make that choice. But what if they stop believing? Consider that Mr A and Mr B now believe the Mr B has the devine right to the last remaining apple. Do you think they are going to continue to respect that you want the mo…

> But what if they stop believing? That is what I'm asking you. Are you saying that you just want to use a different word capture the idea that only one person can have the apple? Because instead of saying Mr A can't afford the apple you're saying that Mr A can't have the apple because of a divine right ... that looks a lot like it has the same implications as affordability. The social construct you're pointing at is…

> that looks a lot like it has the same implications as affordability.

Exactly. Now you're starting to get it. Mr B being able to get an apple by "devine right" and him being able to afford the apple are the exact same thing. And as you witnessed, Mr B was suddenly able to afford an apple he previously may not have been able to afford just because on a whim people changed what they believed in. So, as you can now plainly see, resource allocation is entirely a social construct, just as I said originally.

> The social construct you're pointing at is the labelling of the situation rather than the underlying physics of the situation, is where I'm going with this.

In other words you are trying to randomly change the subject? Resource scarcity is a thing. That much is true. We couldn't recognize resource allocation if it wasn't. But it is not the particular subject we are discussing.

The discussion, in case you have already forgotten, is about how better resource allocation would, apparently, solve many other problems people face. Whereas I am dubious of the claim. My take is that if humans are screwing up something as simple as resource allocation, they're going to continue to also screw up everything else even after you've taken resource allocation out of their hands such that all the other problems will remain.

Is this weird diversion of yours because you want to support the original assertion emotionally but can't actually stand behind it logically and hoping that if you can steer us into talking about something else that that we'll forget all about it?

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

#278

Post by shwetanshu21 »

nitwit005 wrote: post #8
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.

To me the issue isn't seeming inhuman, but cost. Employers often seem happy to impose rediculous time costs on the people they're hiring: take home tests, long series of interviews, etc. What held that back is they also paid a price. Full automation leaves them free to impose infinite cost with no guarantee of anything.

Unfortunately this is becoming common in countries like India since there is no other option. We are looking for a mid level DevOps and get like 1000s of application. The requirements were clear we need k8s and IaC exp. But when we went to interview, none of them had production level exp. They told the recruiter that they had who didnt have a way to verify it. After 2-3 interviews like that, I had so start giving them Coderbyte assesments like write a k8s manifests, a Dockerfile and logs parsing. Otherwise, you won't be able to hire.

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

#279

Post by vidarh »

yetihehe wrote: post #258
avidiax wrote: post #221

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's even worse. If it's going to be a bot, at least give the advantages of the bot and be somewhat honest about it.

> give the advantages of the bot and be somewhat honest about it. The advantage of a bot is for owner of a bot, not for those forced to use that bot. So, owners are incentivized to lie about bot usage.

Well, there can be an advantage in a bot too, if it can actually resolve some subset of problems faster and allows for more timely escalation of what is left. The problem is of course that is far too often not how they are used.
Post reply on HN