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

401–410 of 496 posts

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

#401

Post by datsci_est_2015 »

hattmall wrote: post #385
datsci_est_2015 wrote: post #353

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The problem with erasing biases is that you cannot look at any statistics. The internet and training set can be free of any form of -ism, and the models would still be expected to have biases. In fact it's something desirable, because statistical inferences are a valuable tool. I’m sorry but I can’t let you get away with this terrible argument and conclusion. No one argues for completely erasing bias (especially th…

Ok, but what if you're a non-emotional system, whose biases are generated from objective statistical data? Then you become aware of those biases, and "adjust our opinions and behavior". You are just introducing inefficiency, and it speaks to the OPs point of: > The problem with erasing biases is that you cannot look at any statistics. If you can't use the statistics to generate biases then what is the purpose of buil…

> Ok, but what if you're a non-emotional system, whose biases are generated from objective statistical data?

Objective statistical data doesn’t exist, that’s Data Science / Statistics 101. Your sample always has a bias, unless your sample is: everything, always, how it’s been, and how it always will be.

I don’t really know what inefficiency has to do with anything, wish I could respond to the rest of your comment.

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

#402

Post by [deleted] »

SoftTalker wrote: post #368
fc417fc802 wrote: post #348

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Your logic here amounts to "some people have it bad therefore everyone needs to have it bad". There are many situations where the world would generally be better if a relevant group of people had the option to choose to go elsewhere. When you are part of such a group and don't have that choice it is perfectly reasonable to be frustrated by the state of things.

Frustration is a clue that you need to reframe the problem.

[deleted]

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

#403

Post by array_key_first »

arctic-true wrote: post #16
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 had this experience when I was trying to find an apartment - multiple different buildings very clearly had AI-generated responses. (To all you builders out there: quick replies are great. Instant replies are suspicious.) I immediately stopped considering them as options. If you can’t be bothered to have a human respond to my email when I’m trying to give you my money, what level of service can I expect once I’m alr…

In the past 20 years I've noticed a trend of companies making it harder and harder for me to give them my money.

For apartments, when I would look they wouldn't even bother to tour me half the time. I couldn't believe it.

I'm trying to give you thousands of dollars a month. In a CONTRACT. And you won't even show me the product I'm buying?

One place told me it was dark outside (4pm...), and they didn't feel comfortable touring me around the apartments. Jesus Christ, are we in Gotham? Many just ghosted my touring requests. One turned me down because it was raining (???). I would show up in person in the office, and many would still refuse to tour me.

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

#404

Post by array_key_first »

rimeice wrote: post #395
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.

Taking time to figure out if you’re the right fit for the company and the company is the right fit for you is a very good thing. For both parties! Rushed hiring processes increase the chances of you being fired for not being the right fit. Short hiring processes are a massive red flag for me.

True, but it becomes a problem when the entire thing is automated. Because then it's entirely one-way. You spend infinite cost and money, they spend nothing. So, you can't even figure out yourself if you're a good fit. It's entirely in their court.

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

#405

Post by gzread »

arctic-true wrote: post #16
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 had this experience when I was trying to find an apartment - multiple different buildings very clearly had AI-generated responses. (To all you builders out there: quick replies are great. Instant replies are suspicious.) I immediately stopped considering them as options. If you can’t be bothered to have a human respond to my email when I’m trying to give you my money, what level of service can I expect once I’m alr…

I once called a hotel to book a room and the voice AI bot told me that it does not have a room because it is an AI model and does not have a physical location. I booked a different hotel.

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

#406

Post by jafo1989 »

array_key_first wrote: post #403
arctic-true wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I had this experience when I was trying to find an apartment - multiple different buildings very clearly had AI-generated responses. (To all you builders out there: quick replies are great. Instant replies are suspicious.) I immediately stopped considering them as options. If you can’t be bothered to have a human respond to my email when I’m trying to give you my money, what level of service can I expect once I’m alr…

In the past 20 years I've noticed a trend of companies making it harder and harder for me to give them my money. For apartments, when I would look they wouldn't even bother to tour me half the time. I couldn't believe it. I'm trying to give you thousands of dollars a month. In a CONTRACT. And you won't even show me the product I'm buying? One place told me it was dark outside (4pm...), and they didn't feel comfortabl…

> In the past 20 years I've noticed a trend of companies making it harder and harder for me to give them my money.

They want your money, they are just getting stricter on how they will accept it in order to limit liability and meet compliance, and also maximize profitability.

Much, much better tools these days to address both of those than there were 20 years ago.

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

#407

Post by datsci_est_2015 »

WarmWash wrote: post #383
datsci_est_2015 wrote: post #353

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The problem with erasing biases is that you cannot look at any statistics. The internet and training set can be free of any form of -ism, and the models would still be expected to have biases. In fact it's something desirable, because statistical inferences are a valuable tool. I’m sorry but I can’t let you get away with this terrible argument and conclusion. No one argues for completely erasing bias (especially th…

>The weak link is humans not recognizing that that doesn't mean there cannot be good Italian food in south Texas. A logical hurdle I don't see AI having any problem with. Like your argument mentions, the problem is with human brains, not AI. AI is already plainly miles ahead of most humans in understanding nuance. What will be inescapable though, is trying to be an Italian restaurant that can compete for customers in…

> AI is already plainly miles ahead of most humans in understanding nuance.

That’s a fiery hot take, unless the words “understanding” and “nuance” are doing some concerningly heavy lifting. Either that or you have an incredibly low opinion of “most humans” that borders on misanthropy.

> What will be inescapable though, is trying to be an Italian restaurant that can compete for customers in a south Texas environment will just intrinsically be much more difficult than being a Mexican place. Even the most honest morally pure AI will tell people "When in south texas, you gotta have their mexican food"

This line of argumentation is bizarre that I can only imagine it was chosen by the OP because it sounded more innocent than something like “AI putting black men in jail because it was trained on 4chan”.

Also what is “moral purity”? Sounds condescending to the concept of fighting unjust bias.

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

#408

Post by ohyoutravel »

makingstuffs wrote: post #192

> The creators of these AI tools say the benefit is that it allows companies to hear from virtually everyone who applies for a certain role instead of just a small subset If the LLM conducted the interview on your behalf you did not ‘hear from’ them. The LLM did. Companies should just be honest and say the reality: we want to lower our payroll bill and this allows us to have less people working on recruitment for the…

Yeah I tend to agree. Dystopian. But, when I open a SWE JD, I get about 800 applications. Stack ranking those maybe 100 seem pretty qualified, and 20 seem really qualified and is all I have time for with 30 min hiring manager screens. As I start going down the list, each applicant is probably subjectively worse and worse, but I bet there are lots of candidates I would love and are largely fungible from a skill set perspective, but there’s not enough time in the day to 30 minute screen interview all 100 that seem to fit the requirements. I would love a way to talk to all 100 and make a ranking rather than just subjectively stack ranking and working my way down the list based on resume alone.

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

#409

Post by gwerbin »

array_key_first wrote: post #403
arctic-true wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I had this experience when I was trying to find an apartment - multiple different buildings very clearly had AI-generated responses. (To all you builders out there: quick replies are great. Instant replies are suspicious.) I immediately stopped considering them as options. If you can’t be bothered to have a human respond to my email when I’m trying to give you my money, what level of service can I expect once I’m alr…

In the past 20 years I've noticed a trend of companies making it harder and harder for me to give them my money. For apartments, when I would look they wouldn't even bother to tour me half the time. I couldn't believe it. I'm trying to give you thousands of dollars a month. In a CONTRACT. And you won't even show me the product I'm buying? One place told me it was dark outside (4pm...), and they didn't feel comfortabl…

> And you won't even show me the product I'm buying?

They'd rather rent to someone who is desperate enough to rent without seeing it. It's not that they don't want money, it's that they don't want your money, they want someone more abusable instead.

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

#410

Post by roryirvine »

carlosjobim wrote: post #340
1718627440 wrote: post #284

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Asking for personal information or other stuff that isn't required for the application is weird and somewhat illegal, so maybe I would have ignored it even if I noticed it while reading.

What you had for breakfast is not personal information, and of course nowhere near illegal. The worst employees are those who start out with an attitude that the employer is their enemy like this.

In many countries (certainly the EU and UK), religion is certainly considered personal information, and this sort of question skirts fairly close to that if asked during eg. Lent or Ramadan.

And even outside those periods, it's completely unrelated to the job or the applicant's suitability for it. It might be fine as small talk when setting a candidate at ease or as an icebreaker, but it's unreasonable to expect to form a judgement based on their answer.

Besides, it's the sort of thing that an LLM-based system should easily be able to handle. I'm not sure it would ever give you any sort of useful signal.

Post reply on HN