Live data from Hacker News

Job-seekers are dodging AI interviewers

fortune.com

621–630 of 918 posts

Re: Job-seekers are dodging AI interviewers

#621
post #455

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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

> Britain at least outlawed slavery at home, but not in territories abroad

But...it didn't. I mean, not if "at home" means "throughout Britain" rather than "only in England and Wales".

Re: Job-seekers are dodging AI interviewers

#622
post #506

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> AI can't ever give you everything you need and hope for. And magic isn't real. Perhaps the problem isn't that you are reading a comment in isolation, but rather that you aren't reading them at all?

I could say the same for you. Seriously though, I don't know what you are thinking when you say "Are you aimlessly reading comments in strict isolation?". I don't know what's unclear and what I should expand. If you treat everyone this way there is no way people will talk to you or take you seriously.

> I could say the same for you.

It, like every other followup response I have written, was a question. Do you mean that you would ask the same thing?

> If you treat everyone this way there is no way people will talk to you or take you seriously.

If asking questions means people will not talk to me or take me seriously, that's fine. What purpose would continually asserting random statements serve?

Re: Job-seekers are dodging AI interviewers

#623

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

>You accurately describe the status quo

Yes i'm glad it finally sinks in.

>I’m speaking about how I’d like it to be.

So when are you hiring so we can all enjoy working in a workers' utopia?

Re: Job-seekers are dodging AI interviewers

#624
post #368

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's something only people of privilege in countries that never experienced what the sickle and hammer does to its people.

Non-hammer-and-sickle countries have done the same for centuries in order to amass wealth for its feudal lords. Only its targets used to be people in faraway lands whose humanity could be ignored in service of a 'civilizing mission', which just happened to tie in kindly with the interests of United Fruit Company, the East India Company, the South African diamond industry and countless others. That arc of history is f…

This is so dumb. Afghanistan? Eastern Europe? All the meddling everywhere from NK to Vietnam?

Re: Job-seekers are dodging AI interviewers

#625

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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,…

> 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.

Sounds like an argument against radical societal upheaval, rather than argument against any particular social or economic order. I think it's a good argument, but attacking alternatives to our current order with that argument begs the question: can we not have incremental change towards another order?

Re: Job-seekers are dodging AI interviewers

#626

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…

> 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.

I remember the howls of 'Death Panels' when Hillary Clinton brought forth a single payer universal healthcare back in 1995 as first lady.

I also remember the counter republican / Heritage foundation's plan of a health marketplace. Perhaps you heard of Romney are or ObamaCare? Same plan.

And about death panels? Initially it is a discussion of rationing a limited resource. But the death panels we have now are purely based upon greed of the insurance companies. Delay, Deny, Defend. That depose wasn't so much a bad idea, if we look at human suffering/death as a loss of GDP.

These deaths due to delaying and denying are capitalist deaths.

> Maybe you feel that a pill that costs a few bucks to produce should be sold for that same price. In that case I'd like to remind you that in this case, a private company spent BILLIONS on medical research, without knowing if any of it would ever pay off. If you just take their one succesful product and distribute it for free, they won't bother trying again.

First, most new drugs come out of the public higher education in the form of studies and papers. And Reagan changed the rules allowing universities to make bank on the backs of students.

Since they were publicly funded, they should be owned by the public.

But they're not. The rights get bought by a monopoly maker, who gets nearly 2 decades of protection. Who cares if those drugs could save 5 million per year if reasonably priced. Monopoly control gets monopoly pricing.

Now specifically Solvaldi.. It costs $1000 a pill, once a day for 12 weeks. $84k. Insurance won't pay for this cure, since treatments are cheaper. However it costs $300 to manufacture with chemical supplies. We could save 5 million people a year here, with easy and cheap access to cures. We, as a society, do not value life. We value 'how much I can extract from your life'.

Four Thieves Vinegar Collective talks about this on their videos https://kolektiva.media/w/6iqzQtGqGSKbeFndBkEcm7

> How many great medicins came out of communist countries?

Playing GOTCHA games with 'name something or you're invalid' is boring, and only shows not knowing some name on demand. And that's also being completely ignorant of the propaganda here in the USA.

But one wide area the USSR invested in is macrophage research, as a whole class of drugs. And that's not 1 drug, but a whole class.

But seriously, how many needless deaths are caused by capitalism? And yes, I'm looking at: lack of housing (homelessness), overpriced medicine, overpriced doctors, hyperprocessed and/or food that would not be legal elsewhere, terrible products that create obscene trash, extreme consumerism leading to unmitigated climate devastation.

But hey, a billionaire got another 10 million in the time it took to write my post.

Re: Job-seekers are dodging AI interviewers

#627
post #333

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well... is a chatbot for customer service really all that much worse than a human who is not permitted to deviate from their script?

Certainly, because not deviating from the scripts also cuts off the infinite range of made up nonsense a bot can hallucinate. And it's not like the bot will have magic authority to fix the real issue it can't be bound by the script, so in this regard there is no upside.

Chatbots != LLMs.

We've had chatbots for a long time before LLMs, and while they're of course much more limited as you have to explicitly program every thing it should be able to do, by that very virtue, hallucinating is problem they do not have.

For this kind of customer service chat scenario, I find them much better than just a free style LLM trained in some internal docs.

(Though really, probably the ultimate solution is a hybrid one, where you have an explicitly programmed conversation tree the user can go down, but with an LLM decoding what the user is saying into one of the constrained options. So that if one of the options is "shipping issues", "my order is late" should take me there. While other forms of NLP can do that, LLMS would certainly shine for that application)

Re: Job-seekers are dodging AI interviewers

#628
post #112

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> the problem is that whose who do that thinking want to enrich themselves and not provide for others. That might be your problem, but isn't the problem being discussed. > so the question is, how do we get from the current situation to this life of abundance without letting the majority of people suffer in the transition. The question is, from the perspective of what is being discussed, who cares? "I got mine" applie…

> labor is what they most have to offer, so that is what they will trade What will they eat? Whose land might they be allowed to grow their food on?

> What will they eat?

Each other, at least for a while.

> Whose land might they be allowed to grow their food on?

Labor will be used to develop technologies to provide food without land.

Re: Job-seekers are dodging AI interviewers

#629

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They're probably using a platform that lets you replay the entire development session (see the pace of typing into a web IDE, what files they are looking at, etc.). Applicants will have to work pretty hard to fake natural-looking input of AI-generated code.

Probably not hard to create a bot that controls your computer and makes it looks like you're typing the code in, pausing to think, going back to fix typos etc.. The arms race never stops.

Until that bot is widely available to candidates, it's not an issue.

If they built the bot themselves, they've already proven themselves to the extent that an online coding exercise would.

Re: Job-seekers are dodging AI interviewers

#630
post #422
post #89

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'd hate being interviewed by a bot. Talking to these stupid automated answering machines is bad enough. That said, the other side of the equation is also bad, for employers. I was asked to conduct some interviews recently. I asked the most basic of questions (like absolutely basic stuff, "what is an interface?" level basic). The number of people who said "I don't know" is far less than the number of people who tried…

It really is broken. I know on the recruiting side especially more recently I have so many folks that don’t even want to walk through the problem together or just straight out lie. It’s frustrating and broken for all parties.
Post reply on HN