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

651–660 of 918 posts

Re: Job-seekers are dodging AI interviewers

#651

Post by reaperducer »

SoftTalker wrote: post #485

> Still, stretched-thin HR teams say it’s the only way to handle thousands of applicants. You're doing it wrong if you're considering "thousands" of applicants. First of all ask your current good employees if they can refer anyone. If you need to go to resumes, sort by qualifications. Screen out obvious robo-applications, you know them when you see them just like you know spam email from the subject line alone. Hint:…

First of all ask your current good employees if they can refer anyone.

Not permitted, depending on location and industry.

That kind of thought is how you end up with entire departments of 20-year-old single white guys wearing the same polo shirts and khaki pants.

A company with any size legal department is going to require you to consider applications from the general public.

Re: Job-seekers are dodging AI interviewers

#652

Post by computerdork »

rapind wrote: post #332
computerdork wrote: post #295

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And (even though I don't support him in any way), would say the election of Trump is in part due to the constant wins of the white collar work force. Most of the examples you gave of revolutions led to greater democracy and greater socialism, which benefits the blue collar, but ironically, in this case, the blue collar elected a autocratic conservative. Again, am not a Trump supporter in anyway, but agree that when t…

> The shame is that this underclass does not really see how he is harming them and how his politics benefit their old enemies, the economic elite that’s turning into oligarchs. I'd bet you that at least some are aware and just don't care. You crap on people long enough and they'll want to burn it all down out of spite. I suspect the eventual endgame here might be class warfare. Keep an eye out for more of these oliga…

Feel like we already have some level of class warfare (meaning more than lets say ten years ago).

Re: Job-seekers are dodging AI interviewers

#654

Post by ebiester »

SoftTalker wrote: post #485

> Still, stretched-thin HR teams say it’s the only way to handle thousands of applicants. You're doing it wrong if you're considering "thousands" of applicants. First of all ask your current good employees if they can refer anyone. If you need to go to resumes, sort by qualifications. Screen out obvious robo-applications, you know them when you see them just like you know spam email from the subject line alone. Hint:…

And that’s how to make it impossible to break into an industry regardless of capabilities. And god Covid if you have to move to another city.

Re: Job-seekers are dodging AI interviewers

#655

Post by bcrosby95 »

jg0r3 wrote: post #570
vkou wrote: post #558

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So far, in my experience, that kind of clarification question is highly correlated to be followed by a firehose of bullshit. But I keep an open mind, and am always ready to be pleasantly surprised.

It really depends what your industry is. I've been writing some printer drivers for custom hardware + windows applications at work. Much of the technical jargon I've been learning during development involve things like "driver interfaces" and "communication interfaces". Depending on how recently I'd been working on our printer drivers I also would likely need clarification. Now if the job is "frontend developer" I ag…

Even front end developers have more than 1 concept of an interface: there's both technical facing interfaces and customer facing interfaces.

I guess you could just give a generic answer: an interface represents some kinda boundary between users and implementation details, and hopefully said boundary is easier to use than the details.

I would guess some would flag that as a bullshit answer, but without clarification you can't do anything but speak in generalities.

Now if it were the interface keyword, they're primarily a means by which to introduce polymorphism. They no more achieve the goal of a generally-defined interface than does a regular class, which already satisfies the definition of the generally-defined interface through their public methods. This might also sound like a load of bullshit to some.

Re: Job-seekers are dodging AI interviewers

#657

Post by exceptione »

spwa4 wrote: post #65
exceptione wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

Exactly, doing more with more requires a large population that spends and innovates.

It is about allocation. It might sound like a heresy, but the "invisible hand" is for a good part a myth. Resource allocation in the hand of just a few is

  a) a hand that indeed tries to hide itself
  b) a hand that cuts of energy to the rest of its body
  c) a dying hand
Economics tries to model certain aspects of human behavior as driven by human's psychology, both on the individual and group level. A trading system of other "beings with a different wiring" might be a curiosity, but isn't strictly part of economics.

I would rather have economists in general (not directed at you) think a bit deeper about the unspoken assumptions of their behavioral models, to stop confusing models with laws, and to study humans and groups in a broader sense.

Re: Job-seekers are dodging AI interviewers

#658

Post by 0xDEAFBEAD »

From a game theory perspective, it used to be that if I email a company with my resume and a custom-written cover letter, that's an "honest signal" that I'm genuinely excited about working for that particular company. Since I spent a few minutes out of my day to seek them out and write a cover letter just for them.

ChatGPT degraded that honest signal. Nowadays if a company gets my email with a custom cover letter, they have little idea if I'm actually the slightest bit excited about working there.

We're now seeing degradation in the opposite direction. It used to be that if a company was willing to screen me, that was an "honest signal" that they were truly interested in hiring me. They're telling an engineer who commands a high equivalent-hourly rate to take some time out of their day to talk to me. With an AI screen, I have no idea if I've got a genuine shot.

It's easy to blame the company in this situation, but in a certain sense it was an inevitable result of being flooded with AI-assisted applicants. The company needs a new way to filter for those who truly want the job.

Re: Job-seekers are dodging AI interviewers

#659

Post by mlinhares »

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…

This might be what finally kicks me out of tech to go start my own business.

Re: Job-seekers are dodging AI interviewers

#660

Post by WaxProlix »

goatlover wrote: post #602
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…

That's not true at all. Afghanistan was occupied for 20 years until the US decided to pull out, because nation building didn't work there. That's not a military failure.

Substitute Vietnam then, if the point makes you feel better.
Post reply on HN