Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Job-seekers are dodging AI interviewers

fortune.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

451–460 of 918 posts

Re: Job-seekers are dodging AI interviewers

#451

Post by assword »

rapind wrote: post #316
kergonath wrote: post #219

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What is even more infuriating is that they can keep winning. They just have to stop being arseholes about it and pay lip service to wealth redistribution and social progress. It’s their winner-takes-all fuck-you-got-mine mentality that is pouring fuel on the fire

That's probably why "old money" doesn't like "new money". New money is crass, loud, and obnoxious. Old money knows that it's best to keep to the shadows, at least until one of their idiot kids ruins it. I think the inability for people to control themselves, while probably our greatest weakness, is also what often saves us. The greed goes too far and then there's a massive backlash (revolution). Technology is trying…

> That's probably why "old money" doesn't like "new money". New money is crass, loud, and obnoxious. Old money knows that it's best to keep to the shadows, at least until one of their idiot kids ruins it.

I suspect that’s why I’ve seen more serious monarchists than I ever have before.

Re: Job-seekers are dodging AI interviewers

#453

Post by PessimalDecimal »

bendigedig wrote: post #222

Can I let my AI chat bot do the interview for me? I want to filter out all of the crap companies before I commit my time to actually talking to them.

That's the right response. The direction this is heading is that all content distributed over the Internet should be assumed to come from a bot. This company has a couple years tops before that is obvious enough that companies don't even bother.

Re: Job-seekers are dodging AI interviewers

#454

Post by panarky »

shermantanktop wrote: post #193
delta_p_delta_x wrote: post #173

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The sickle and hammer looking real interesting now.

It surprises me that the monied elite seem to have so little awareness of what happens when they keep winning.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Herbert_Stein#Stein's_Law

Nobody knows when.

But it's useful to think about how.

Re: Job-seekers are dodging AI interviewers

#455

Post by Isamu »

delta_p_delta_x wrote: post #386
imglorp wrote: post #363

Earlier 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…

> Monopolies and labor abuses were mostly in check Really? Transatlantic slavery by far the biggest labour abuse, then the company towns, then Standard Oil which was allowed to run amok for 30 years then broken up (which then consolidated into ExxonMobil and Chevron again). These are just off the top of my head. The US from my point of view has been a puritanical, borderline genocidal, enslaving, cowardly and hypocri…

>By many measures the Roman and British empires were 'more successful'.

With the Roman Empire you are overlooking their slavery, genocide, etc, most of your critique applies. Britain at least outlawed slavery at home, but not in territories abroad, hence the slavery in the Americas and elsewhere

Re: Job-seekers are dodging AI interviewers

#456

Post by throwawaymaths »

dragonwriter wrote: post #379
imglorp wrote: post #363

Earlier 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…

the current us capitalist system is essentially a post-civil war system... considering the us started as a wartorn backwater in 1860 and wound up as the dominant nation in world by 1950 says something.

Re: Job-seekers are dodging AI interviewers

#457

Post by agent327 »

antonvs wrote: post #404
agent327 wrote: post #390

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because you fancy a tyrannical dictatorship that will likely kill tens of millions of its own citizens? Do you have no historical knowledge at all? Do you just not know that, every time the "sickle and hammer" are tried, it ends in oppression, deep poverty, and mass killings?

That's a pretty weak inductive argument. To substantiate it, you'd need to look at the actual causes of that apparent connection. In doing so, you'd likely find that the connection is nowhere near as directly causal as you seem to be imagining. After all, China has been following a market-based variation on a communist one-party state for quite some time. While it's certainly not the freest country in the world, toda…

The connection is trivial: you are upsetting an existing power system, temporarily removing all checks and balances. The new power system gets established by the aggressors, and they have absolutely no reason to hold back. At that point, human nature will simply take over.

My perspective has nothing to do with indoctrination, but is instead born out of historical knowledge. Communism has been tried again, and again, and again, and each time the outcome was the same. Capitalism has also been tried, and has lifted more people out of poverty than any other system we ever came up with.

The existence of the ultra-rich doesn't bother me. I wouldn't suddenly be richer if people like Musk or Bezos suddenly popped out of existence; their lives simply don't impact mine. If anything, their existence serves as an inspiration for others to try for big dreams. Many of those will fail, some will succeed marginally, and a very small number will join the ranks of the ultra-rich - because they managed to provide a service that millions of people were willing to give them money. What does communism have to offer, in comparison to that? Equal poverty doesn't sound all that attractive.

Now, if you were to argue that these mega-rich people and their companies have too much power, we would have something to talk about. I see the solution to that in legislation though, not in the complete destruction of our society followed by a century-long dark age.

Re: Job-seekers are dodging AI interviewers

#458

Post by suddenlybananas »

agent327 wrote: post #407
mystraline wrote: post #376

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Notice it was the capitalist ccountries that kept a running death count for socialist counties. Pray tell, how many people in capitalist countries died due to capitalism? None of them! It was always the individuals' responsibility! /sarcasm (Aside: we know just from the lack of access and $84k for Solvaldi alone is causing 5 million dead per year, and rising. And that's just a single hepatitis drug. And that's not ev…

There absolutely is a difference between people that die because we, as a species, cannot afford to spend the combined sum of all of our productivity on health care (which means that you will have to tell some people "no", even though they will die as a result of that), and a tyrannical dictator specifically ordering the death of people because they are a political threat to him. Maybe you feel that a pill that costs…

Plenty of people have been murdered to defend capitalism. After the fall of the Paris commune, 30000 people were butchered in the streets. Millions of people were murdered for being communist or even just belonging to a union in Indonesia.

Not to mention the fact that the 100 million figures includes Wehrmacht soldiers or terminated fetuses as "victims" of Communism to inflate its numbers.

If you really think that there simply aren't enough resources for everyone, that makes the gluttony of the wealthy so much worse.

Re: Job-seekers are dodging AI interviewers

#459

Post by Aurornis »

antonymoose wrote: post #321
Aurornis wrote: post #278

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In my experience, candidates who demand equivalent face time always underestimate how much time is spent selecting candidates, reviewing resumes, scheduling interviews, preparing the interview structure, reviewing interviews, advocating for candidates to progress, getting their offers approved, dealing with HR, and the countless other things that go into getting someone from the application phase to being hired. If y…

I don’t know if I would throw out “equal time” as my metric, but it’s not far off. There is always going to be some asymmetry in the interview process, especially in early stages, but there should be some balance to it, an ebb and flow. Companies asking me to spend 2 or 4 or 8 or 16 hours on a take home quiz before I’ve so much as had a 15 minute screen with HR or the hiring manager go straight into the trash. I’m no…

> Companies asking me to spend 2 or 4 or 8 or 16 hours on a take home quiz before I’ve so much as had a 15 minute screen with HR or the hiring manager go straight into the trash.

Companies handing you 16 hour assignments without a phone screen should indeed go straight into the trash.

I've spent a few years volunteering on and off in an interview prep help mentoring program. For as much as everyone likes to talk about these "16 hour take-home without ever talking to the company" these extreme scenarios almost never come up for discussion.

Everyone comes into the prep group thinking that's how their job search is going to look. A few people apply to small, scammy companies who try to do these things but you have to be blind to miss the warning signs.

For the most part, all of the take-homes that people either share directly or talk about are nowhere near the 10-40 hour take-homes that everyone on the internet likes to complain about. I've seen a couple people share them, but it's not normal at all.

Re: Job-seekers are dodging AI interviewers

#460

Post by Loughla »

jghn wrote: post #102

From both sides of the table, I have a strict philosophy that the candidate's time is the more valuable commodity. Thus in any situation where a company is offloading internal effort but still requiring the candidate to put in time & effort, that's a company I would not want to work for. This is the ultimate expression of that bullcrap.

I've left interviews because they were late or unprepared when I showed up at their business. I've turned down interviews where they wanted an hour long personality test beforehand. I've turned down interviews where they wanted to include irrelevant math problems to evaluate how I work under pressure. I've turned down offers because the managers didn't answer basic questions I had about company culture.

But I'm also at a point in my life where I can do that, and I feel absolutely blessed to be in that situation.

For unemployed or new workers, the world is a fucking nightmare.

And it's all because the people with X (in this case, jobs) see their time as WAY more valuable than the people without X. It's, quite frankly, disgusting, dehumanizing, and depressing.

The entire world is devaluing interpersonal communication and the humanity of the people around us and it feels out of control.

When I hire, my baseline assumption is that I'm wasting the candidates time, so I try to keep it succinct and relevant the entire time. I wish more people did as well.

Post reply on HN