Then we as job seekers should 100% respond to nearly most of these idiotic interview questions with "You can solve that by asking AI, next question". "reverse this string" "reverse this integer" "reorder this list" "make a linked list".
Job-seekers are dodging AI interviewers
391–400 of 918 posts
Re: Job-seekers are dodging AI interviewers
#392Take this entire paragraph and read carefully, and it explains how to kill this trend: > “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…
Most job seekers don't have the luxury of choice.
In this industry they do. You know that companies using these tools are exercising minimal effort and due diligence, and that should be taken into consideration before participating. It only makes sense to play the high-volume application game if each application takes negligible effort to submit. The people I've known that have gone that route have had <1% success rates. For quality candidates, a lower-volume targeted approach will yield the best jobs and retain your sanity.
Re: Job-seekers are dodging AI interviewers
#393If I understand right, this is about actual text chatbots, where they don't hide that it's an AI interview? I've not experienced one of those, but I don't think it would be as bad as the time I was interviewed by AI through a human relay on a video call. It took me a long time to realise. Sometimes I'd say something 'technical' and she'd say "Mmm yes, definitely," nodding lots while typing something, but I got the funny feeling she hadn't understood. So I recalibrated, but then a few questions later she'd say something that indicated she must have understood the technical thing I'd said earlier. So I thought: oh cool, I am talking with a fellow engineer after all – and I'd get a little more technical with my answers again. But then I'd get that same unconvincing nodding response. After a few rounds of this it hit me that I was being interviewed by an AI, relaying through a human who was smiling and laughing and chatting while not understanding what the AI and I were talking about. The rest of the interview felt really uncomfortable.
Re: Job-seekers are dodging AI interviewers
#394What if help wanted ads simply asked you to mail your resume and a cover letter, the old fashioned way via snail mail. Wouldn't that immediately filter out all the bots and be a much more human experience for all involved?
Re: Job-seekers are dodging AI interviewers
#395Earlier 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.
Don't ever let anyone brainwash you into thinking we don't have the money and guns either.
I don’t think ai interviews warrant gun violence.
Re: Job-seekers are dodging AI interviewers
#396Earlier quoted context omitted.
Having recently come off a micro-binge of the rise of USSR and it's history, the common theme in keeping a state communist through change of leadership is "The system works great, they just didn't know how to run it properly." Then they also proceeded to just continue the devastation. The fundamental problem of communism is that everyone needs to play along, but the rewards for not playing along grow as more people d…
Chinese socialism is interesting and I think works quite well. Absolutely new stuff is basically unrestricted. Go build, have fun, make money. Intermediate stuff is partially state controlled, including cost, profits, pollution, and more. Essentials are effectively state owned, cost controlled, and 'very stable'. Also, the USSR was the first time it was tried. It succeeded some ways, but failed in others.
It works quite well in China, assuming of course you are not so unlucky as to want to protest on Tienanmen Square. Or have useful organs someone higher up might want to harvest. Or are an Uygur. Or a Tibetan. Or live in a place downstream of a large dam. Or want to express an opinion.
Oh, and you know how Nazi Germany was the first time that Nazism was tried as well? It also succeeded in some ways, and failed in others. So I guess we should excuse that as well, then?
Re: Job-seekers are dodging AI interviewers
#397Earlier quoted context omitted.
> That's where your argument falls apart. Are you aimlessly reading comments in strict isolation?
No
Then why did you claim the argument falls apart, but then proceed to retell the very argument you claim fell apart?
If you read the comment in isolation I could at least understand your confusion, but you state that isn't the case.
Re: Job-seekers are dodging AI interviewers
#398Earlier quoted context omitted.
We (the US) had a very successful, carefully designed system that seems to have been an unstable configuration. It was neither hammer and sickle nor single megacorporation: it was balanced on a hill between both. The combination of (1) checks and balances, (2) separation of money, religion, corporation, and government, and (3) regulation in moderation worked pretty well for around 200 years. Monopolies and labor abus…
> We (the US) had a very successful, carefully designed system The idea that it was "very successful" basically comes from ignoring things like the Civil War, and the idea that it was "carefully designed" comes from building a fiction around the output and ignoring the process that actually produced it (in no small part aided by people viewing the after-the-drafting sales campaign of the Federalist Papers as if it re…
Interesting to see the Federalist papers as a PR campaign.