Live data from Hacker News

Job-seekers are dodging AI interviewers

fortune.com

61–70 of 918 posts

Re: Job-seekers are dodging AI interviewers

#61
post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Count ourselves lucky they haven’t lucky figured out how to make literal ghouls out of silica and the recently dead, because these people would. Just what happened that caused employers to hold so much power in the employee-employer relationship? The collapse of collective bargaining, sure. But what else…

Decades and decades of unfettered Capitalism. - Labor protections getting weaker over time, plus courts usually siding with employers. Overtime laws got chipped away, and a lot of folks get called "contractors" when they're basically employees. - Jobs can move overseas way easier now, so workers don't really have the same leverage they used to. - Big companies buying everything up, regional monopolies forming, and th…

And, as usual, you can trace the majority of this back to Reagan.

Busting unions, vilifying poor people, weakening and removing regulations, and (very crucially) changing the basic philosophy behind antitrust.

Re: Job-seekers are dodging AI interviewers

#62

> “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. Man, what a ghoul.

He's saying the quiet part out loud but all companies think the same whenever they design the hoops their candidates have to jump through. It's shocking to me people are offended of hearing people tell the truth. Would you prefer if he lied to you and called you "valuable family members" instead? Edit to clarify for all those below who misread: I meant "the truth" as in "transparency" from his perspective of how he r…

You're misattributing abhorrence as offense.

If someone tells you they've commited [insert abhorrent act here], you're not offended by their beliefs, you're abhorred and disgusted by their actions.

Them telling the truth doesn't make it any less abhorrent. Hence "what a ghoul".

Re: Job-seekers are dodging AI interviewers

#63
post #59
post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Direct trading kind of died out towards the end of middle age, are we supposed to go back in time?

No, why? If people still want other people to do things for them, accounting isn't going anywhere. It has already been invented. We don't have to un-invent it. But, if this our future, then humans remain relevant, so there is no concern about job loss or anything of that nature. If, however, some future plays out where people aren't needed to work anymore, there will simply be no need for trade. The magical AIs, or w…

Time to fight for fertile land then.

Re: Job-seekers are dodging AI interviewers

#64
post #41
post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> they forget people also need money to buy their goods. the goods ought to have become cheaper if the ai/mechanization/industrialization is cheaper than labour. And also when "the rich" have more profit, they now want to spend that profit on things, which spawns new luxury good industries. Of course, the news cycle and the sob stories always revolve around people losing their existing jobs, but there is new jobs aro…

The trickle down effect you mention here is simply not present in the data. Instead, wealth inequality keeps going up.

Yes it is. What you're conveniently forgetting is that governments and banks (which are kind-of government, except profits go to private hands) think this is a very, very, very, VERY good thing indeed.

Why? Well, what is wealth inequality? It is people and companies (indirectly also people) not spending money. Just keeping it. "For the future". In bank accounts. On the stock market. In government bonds. Under their pillow. This also explains that a very large chunk of "the rich" is in practice people's pensions.

This means that governments can create almost unlimited new money, without taxing anything, and know it'll be hoovered up by the wealthy. What happens in practice? Wealthy people and companies will provide goods and services to hoover up that money, but they won't want (any new) goods and services in return. In other words: it is a way for governments to acquire almost unlimited goods and services in return for ... nothing at all. A few updates to a database "to be paid in the future".

And if you look at what governments spend money on, it's "everyone", the "public good", in other words: on the poor. In other words: this is a way for the poor to get more stuff now.

You want to kill this effect? Expect every government employee, every pensioner, every unemployment benefit receiver, every sick or disabled person and so on to scream bloody murder, because you'll have to seriously cut a LOT of benefits. Or, frankly, if recent history is any indication, to actually just kill you with a 3d printed gun.

Of course, because the government is still overspending, and debt servicing is becoming bigger and bigger. New debt is adding less and less spending power to government budgets. In some countries debt servicing is already bigger than the growth in debt (and not just Argentina and Pakistan). You can calculate: if Trump continues like this, the US will cross this critical threshold halfway through his term (assuming 5% interest rate). At that point the US government will lose the ability to trade government debt for goods and services. And last Trump term spending went up and up and up as his term progressed, and so far the same is happening this term. Had we elected a deceased possum instead of Trump, our country would have been fiscally better of than we are now.

So you'll see the maga republicans join the democrats in shouting and screaming how evil banks and "the rich" are, in 3 years or less. What's scary is that due to Trump this moment is coming towards us a LOT faster than it was under Biden, despite, of course, Trump getting elected on the promise that he would make the opposite happen. But, as said before, a dead possum would have far outperformed Trump on the fiscal front.

Re: Job-seekers are dodging AI interviewers

#65
post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> they forget people also need money to buy their goods. the goods ought to have become cheaper if the ai/mechanization/industrialization is cheaper than labour. And also when "the rich" have more profit, they now want to spend that profit on things, which spawns new luxury good industries. Of course, the news cycle and the sob stories always revolve around people losing their existing jobs, but there is new jobs aro…

> And also when "the rich" have more profit, they now want to spend that profit on things, which spawns new luxury good industries. That will be a rounding error. Economic growth comes from a large population that spends and innovates. Wealth concentration buys policy and media, and after that all of sudden the following things happen: tax gap widens, public services deteriorates, innovation halting, etc. Wealth conc…

> Economic growth comes from a large population that spends and innovates.

No it doesn't. Economic growth comes from "doing more with more". WHO does that doesn't matter. It matters for inequality and jobs and a lot of things, but not for economic growth. If skynet kills all Americans and builds 5 million nukes, that will be economic growth.

Re: Job-seekers are dodging AI interviewers

#66
post #34
post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> they forget people also need money to buy their goods. the goods ought to have become cheaper if the ai/mechanization/industrialization is cheaper than labour. And also when "the rich" have more profit, they now want to spend that profit on things, which spawns new luxury good industries. Of course, the news cycle and the sob stories always revolve around people losing their existing jobs, but there is new jobs aro…

One such kind of jobs have leaders like in those mythical Robin Hood stories. Those jobs certainly never go out of fashion, as seen in poorer world regions, where you as well say, people find new jobs all the time.

You mean having 10.000 servants for a few rich people, their families and government institutions? Yeah, real fun jobs, those.

Re: Job-seekers are dodging AI interviewers

#67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> all companies think the same whenever they design the hoops their candidates have to jump through Stop making hoops. Like what part of tech hiring do you really think you’ve innovated on enough to justify making new hoops? Hell, you’d think with AI and everyone’s digital footprint you’d be able to reduce the number of hoops.

Where do you see ME making the hoops or defending the hoops? But every company has their own version of hoops that you need to get that job. Nobody is forcing you though. You can just avoid the companies who's hoops you don't like. What part of that I just said is false?

Sorry, I’m speaking positively. You accurately describe the status quo. I’m speaking about how I’d like it to be.

Re: Job-seekers are dodging AI interviewers

#68
post #4

It is all almost making richer even more richer, instead of properly hiring people for HR, AI bots. Instead of having more people at the supermarket, have the customers work as if they were employees, the only thing missing is fetching stuff from warehouse when missing on the shelves, but still pay the same or more. Instead of paying to artists, do job ads using generated AI images with code magically showing off mon…

> the only thing missing is fetching stuff from warehouse

Amateurs, IKEA solved that one decades ago ;) But that's Scandinavian practicality or whatever they use to sell themselves these days :)

Re: Job-seekers are dodging AI interviewers

#69
post #64
post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The trickle down effect you mention here is simply not present in the data. Instead, wealth inequality keeps going up.

Yes it is. What you're conveniently forgetting is that governments and banks (which are kind-of government, except profits go to private hands) think this is a very, very, very, VERY good thing indeed. Why? Well, what is wealth inequality? It is people and companies (indirectly also people) not spending money. Just keeping it. "For the future". In bank accounts. On the stock market. In government bonds. Under their p…

>this is a way for the poor to get more stuff now.

Ummm, what? That’s not how inequality works.

Re: Job-seekers are dodging AI interviewers

#70
post #4

It is all almost making richer even more richer, instead of properly hiring people for HR, AI bots. Instead of having more people at the supermarket, have the customers work as if they were employees, the only thing missing is fetching stuff from warehouse when missing on the shelves, but still pay the same or more. Instead of paying to artists, do job ads using generated AI images with code magically showing off mon…

Well, people may need money to buy the goods, but soon the robots will do it instead.

Problem solved!

Post reply on HN