441–450 of 918 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
$20 a month for a nearly unlimited stream of high intelligence isn’t really undemocratic imo
It's funny that you think they can't just raise the prices at will. (And by funny i mean really sad)
Take 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…
Correct, and the second subtext is that every company using one of these is actually filtering for desperation, not talent. So these companies are actually screwing themselves Think about it: if you’re talented, why would you ever put up with this bullshit? I hired for my team this year and I read every single one of the hundreds of applications. HR was experimenting with an AI recommendation software which missed a…
Exactly. I have a very good job at a name brand tech company and regularly get reached out to by recruiters. I don’t tolerate BS like information asymmetry, take home tests, AI evaluations, etc.
The whole situation kindof reminds me of online dating, the top 10% of people are targeted by the other 90%. I wonder if there is some common phenomenon underlying both online dating and job matching because they are eerily similar.
Much like in dating, the answer may be to reject the whole online recruiting system and resort to in person interactions where symmetry is restored.
Unfortunately it is possible to live without a romantic partner, but in non-socialized nations it is not possible to live without an income.
> It does 100 interviews, and it’s going to hand back the best 10 to the hiring manager, and then the human takes over,” he says. Yikes. One thing that's incredibly important about reaching the interview-stage of a job application has been that there is a parity, or even an imbalance favoring the candidate, in human time usage. The company's people (often multiple people at once) have to spend time with the candidate…
> Admitting right off the bat that you're going to waste the time of 90% of your applicants without these stakes is just wildly disrespectful. They were already doing this. Now it is just more automated. You didnt have the right keywords. 2pts into the basket. Too long (meaning old/bad team fit), gone. You worked for a company that might have some sort of backend NDA, gone. Wrong school, gone. Wrong whatever, gone. Y…
That's not really true.
From the candidate, there's the effort to submit a resume (low), and then the effort to personally get on a video call and spend 45 minutes talking (high).
Discarding 290 out of the 300 resumes without talking to the candidate is way more acceptable, because the effort required from the company is about the same as the effort required by the candidate.
Asking the candidate to do an interview with an AI flips this; the company can en masse require high effort from the candidate without matching it.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
$20 a month for a nearly unlimited stream of high intelligence isn’t really undemocratic imo
To call GPT-4o high intelligence, is aspirational (to put it more plainly: GPT-4o is such a bad model it's not worth paying for compared to what's out there). And yes, it is undemocratic - when was the last time you got a say over what the AI is allowed to do for you, let alone a say over any of the ideas for how to improve it?
For my money (my actual money!) o3 is still the best model I’ve used. That is included in the $20 a month plan.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> companies that use Greenhouse for applications What's wrong with Greenhouse? I've seen several companies use it, and other than being just another bog-standard applicant tracking system I haven't seen anything particularly bad. I would love to know what the scoop is here.
My experience is almost a 100% correlation with being ghosted, so I'm assuming there's some quick and easy filters that I get dropped for. So I'm not wasting time without emailing with or talking to someone first.
I would be careful about taking too negative of a view of this: > Still, stretched-thin HR teams say it’s the only way to handle thousands of applicants. I sometimes wonder if a better solution is to limit the number of jobs someone can apply to; IE, push job seekers to be more selective and screen openings more carefully. Alternatively, if there was a way for an employer to prioritize applicants that have sent out l…
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…
I had AI interview recently and I was a little offended considering the level of position so I decided to go off script and complain about the perception it gave them rather than answering the questions. It neatly transcribed this and sent it to an HR drone who actually called me the next day and apologised as it was new technology that they had decided to use. But it turned out the advertised position didn't exist a…
When a physical good is advertised rather than a job, this is called "bait and switch" and is plainly illegal.
Are these jobs even real ? I suspect they are using desperate candidates to train and calibrate their models.