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

631–640 of 918 posts

Re: Job-seekers are dodging AI interviewers

#631

Post by benreesman »

varjag wrote: post #601
benreesman wrote: post #547

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The United States Military is the most terrifying institution of force in the history of the human race (history of the universe as far as we know). It achieves a level of training, discipline, organization, morale, combat effectiveness and general formidavlbility that makes the median Marine among the best soldiers on the planet anywhere, all backed by a logistical apparatus unrivaled by any conceivable combination…

I mean sure but also very few of Talibs who first faced the US military had lived to see its withdrawal.

That's the whole point. They were willing to die for it forever and at some point we weren't anymore.

That's how war works now. It's always been true to some extent but conflict is just getting more and more asymmetrical with no obvious upper limit.

At some point the Houthi in a cave with a five hundred dollar DJI drone and rage in his heart is king in that world: the only way to lose is to care about something that hasn't already been taken from you. You'll never kill all of them. Not with a nuclear bomb.

Re: Job-seekers are dodging AI interviewers

#632

Post by pixl97 »

throwawayoldie wrote: post #557
shrubble wrote: post #543

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Like with the Viet Cong and the Afghanistan people who were conquered and absorbed into the American or Russian systems, right?

And now let's imagine what might happen if the US military tried to occupy a country full of guerillas who look like them, dress like them, speak the same language, and share a cultural background.

The US wins on logistics because it has a lot of stuff already built, and anything we need we can build in the US and get it out of the US quickly.

This quickly falls apart in the US if we go civil war on each other. We are technologically fragile. If just a small portion of the people of the US went around shooting electrical distribution, fuel refining and NG compression facilities the US would have one of the worst humanitarian disasters of the last 50 years, maybe longer.

This said, there are a number of countries that would love to see us do this to each other.

Re: Job-seekers are dodging AI interviewers

#633

Post by prepend »

lucraft wrote: post #513
elAhmo wrote: post #467

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Those people should be filtered by CV screening, maybe some sort of email exchange before with a few questions to answer to 'ensure' human wants to invest some time in the interview process, rather than just spray and pray.

To an extent I think would be surprising to anyone who hasn’t done interviews, all developer CVs below about Staff level are the same . Everyone’s architected a system, handled communication with stakeholders, contributed to technical direction of the team, mentored other developers, etc etc

You’d think that but I remember one interview where the candidate was highly recommended and they had never communicated with a stakeholder. A PM had always done that. They had never talked with a user. Ever. They had 15 years of experience.

It’s funny the stuff I assume is really easy and common and keep getting reminded that the world is really diverse.

Re: Job-seekers are dodging AI interviewers

#634

Post by rcxdude »

DavidWoof wrote: post #202
threetonesun wrote: post #141

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Same argument for removing customer service with chatbots or AI. It's entirely untrue, and creates a much worse customer experience, but because people drop out your KPIs / NPS is based off of people who were willing to put up with shit to get to a real human.

Give me an AI chatbot over someone with poor English skills reading a script any day of the week. My problem probably isn't unique, it's probably something fairly obvious that was vague in the instructions. Now, the important thing is offer a way to upgrade to a human. But I have no problem at all starting with AI, in fact I honestly prefer it.

That doesn't really match my experience. Usually if my problem is not unique it's already documented somewhere and I've solved it that way (And support generally puts some effort into documenting the non-unique problems to reduce their workload). If I'm calling support, it's because I've exhausted all other options and I've either concluded I need them to do something I can't do with an online form or the information is not at all accessible elsewhere, in which case first line support is nothing but an obstacle.

Re: Job-seekers are dodging AI interviewers

#635

Post by Supernaut »

bluecalm wrote: post #568
mingus88 wrote: post #274

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I’m not that surprised. To reach the level of billionaire, it’s pretty much a requirement that you abandon all empathy and ethics. What’s surprising is that nobody in their circle has educated them on the concept of a win-win. These people could be folk heros, universally loved and respected in ways buying a social media platform and banning all the haters will never accomplish.

What about a guy who made a popular Java game in his spare time and sold it to Microsoft for 2 billion? What in that process required forgoing empathy and ethics? That's just one example. There are plenty of rich people who got there fairly and created a lot of value along the way.

I take it you're referring to the same guy who, after taking his money, wrote that feminism is a "social disease" and that privilege is a "made up metric"? That guy?

Re: Job-seekers are dodging AI interviewers

#636

Post by Animats »

akudha wrote: post #422
Balgair wrote: 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…

"I'll have my bot call your bot".

There's already a user-side AI program for talking to customer service phone systems. (Need to find the reference. Really good idea.)

(I can't find the reference. It's buried under a sea of advertising for company-side chatbots. Anybody remember the link?)

Re: Job-seekers are dodging AI interviewers

#637

Post by mlboss »

prepend wrote: post #633
lucraft wrote: post #513

Earlier quoted context omitted.

To an extent I think would be surprising to anyone who hasn’t done interviews, all developer CVs below about Staff level are the same . Everyone’s architected a system, handled communication with stakeholders, contributed to technical direction of the team, mentored other developers, etc etc

You’d think that but I remember one interview where the candidate was highly recommended and they had never communicated with a stakeholder. A PM had always done that. They had never talked with a user. Ever. They had 15 years of experience. It’s funny the stuff I assume is really easy and common and keep getting reminded that the world is really diverse.

I don't think you will ever talk to a user if you work in a big company. There are so many layers of abstraction.

Re: Job-seekers are dodging AI interviewers

#638

Post by mec31 »

ben_w wrote: post #414
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…

200 years? And went wrong in 1970? The USA absolutely wasn't a good system in 1770, and has sucked for a lot of people for large fraction of those years. Who could vote was all over the place for a long time: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_voting_rights_in_t... Civil War was about as far from "balanced" as you can get, and the problems weren't even on the axis of "hammer and sickle" vs "single megacorporat…

This one blew my mind when I first heard of it: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bisbee_Deportation

Re: Job-seekers are dodging AI interviewers

#640

Post by fzeroracer »

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…

I'm curious, what's your opinion on Nestle?
Post reply on HN