Job-seekers are dodging AI interviewers • Hacker News Board

Re: Job-seekers are dodging AI interviewers

#661

Post by achierius » Mon, Aug 04, 2025, 9:21 PM UTC

glitchc wrote: post #583

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…

Nah, that's only true because the US fought in accordance with the Geneva Convention. It could have easily turned the entire country to glass if it wanted to.

Would American soldiers do so? If you think they all would, you have no understanding of history.

Re: Job-seekers are dodging AI interviewers

#662

Post by remyp » Mon, Aug 04, 2025, 9:21 PM UTC

dfxm12 wrote: post #233

MrBrobot wrote: post #103

> Candidates tell Fortune that AI interviewers make them feel unappreciated to the point where they’d rather skip out on potential job opportunities, reasoning the company’s culture can’t be great if human bosses won’t make the time to interview them. But HR experts argue the opposite; since AI interviewers can help hiring managers save time in first-round calls, the humans have more time to have more meaningful conv…

What is an AI interview going to glean that it can't already from a resume? The power imbalance is already so far tipped to the employer side. This verbiage doesn't even consider the applicant a human with time worth saving or worth having meaningful conversations!

Gleaning information isn't the goal; whittling down deluge of applicants is. For the company, candidate time is free and manager time is massively expensive. The AI tools are cheaper than hiring more HR staff, so companies buy them lest they be haunted by the ghost of Milton Friedman.

Anybody who has been on the hiring side post-GPT knows why these AI tools are getting built: people and/or their bots are blind-applying to every job everywhere regardless of their skillset. The last mid-level Python dev job I posted had 300 applicants in the first hour, with 1/4 of them being from acupuncturists and restaurant servers who have never written a line of code. Sure, they're easy to screen out, but there are thousands to sift through.

Having said that, I don't like AI interview tools and will not be using them. I do understand why others do, though.

Re: Job-seekers are dodging AI interviewers

#663

Post by jacksonjadden » Mon, Aug 04, 2025, 9:22 PM UTC

remyp wrote: post #662

dfxm12 wrote: post #233

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What is an AI interview going to glean that it can't already from a resume? The power imbalance is already so far tipped to the employer side. This verbiage doesn't even consider the applicant a human with time worth saving or worth having meaningful conversations!

Gleaning information isn't the goal; whittling down deluge of applicants is. For the company, candidate time is free and manager time is massively expensive. The AI tools are cheaper than hiring more HR staff, so companies buy them lest they be haunted by the ghost of Milton Friedman. Anybody who has been on the hiring side post-GPT knows why these AI tools are getting built: people and/or their bots are blind-applyi…

[dead]

Re: Job-seekers are dodging AI interviewers

#664

Post by ed_elliott_asc » Mon, Aug 04, 2025, 9:22 PM UTC

franktankbank wrote: post #519

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:…

You are giving advice to some of the dumbest people in the country. I'm not saying its bad advice, but these people are universally stupid. I don't know exactly why things ended up this way, but I'd love to hear where this isn't a truth.

Don’t hold back with your opinions!

Re: Job-seekers are dodging AI interviewers

#665

Post by weldboss » Mon, Aug 04, 2025, 9:23 PM UTC

reaperducer wrote: post #651

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.

[flagged]

Re: Job-seekers are dodging AI interviewers

#666

Post by linotype » Mon, Aug 04, 2025, 9:24 PM UTC

If everyone stopped doing them the problem would solve itself.

Re: Job-seekers are dodging AI interviewers

#667

Post by achierius » Mon, Aug 04, 2025, 9:25 PM UTC

nostrademons wrote: post #585

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?

The Vietnam war killed close to a million Vietnamese between North and South Vietnamese civilians and the Vietcong [1] The Afghanistan war killed about 3500 U.S. & allied soldiers, and about 300,000 Afghans. [2] The Iraq war killed about 5000 U.S. & allied soldiers, and about 1 million Iraqis. [3] U.S. military power since WW2 can basically be summed up by "We can't win, but we can still kill you." If you end up dead…

Yeah but they're still independent.

> U.S. military power since WW2 can basically be summed up by "We can't win, but we can still kill you." If you end up dead, your side may win, but that's cold comfort (literally) for you.

Some of them, yes. But even for those who do die: haven't you heard "give me liberty or give me death"? Many people do feel this way.

> Also, the huge irony of the Vietnam war is that by 1989, 15 years after the North Vietnamese "won", Vietnam was one of the most intensely capitalist countries on Earth.

Yet where is the dictatorship of the bourgeoisie? Why do Vietnamese billionaires not run the government like they do that of America, and why does their government not have to kowtow to American business interests like Taiwan, Japan, and South Korea do? Because despite opening up their economy, their political system is far from a liberal democracy. You're making a false equivalence to try and pretend that the Vietnamese war was a no-op, that they should have just rolled over and accepted defeat like you're suggesting all the peoples of the world do.

Re: Job-seekers are dodging AI interviewers

#668

Post by callc » Mon, Aug 04, 2025, 9:27 PM UTC

beefnugs wrote: post #586

0xpgm wrote: post #300

> “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. “If there were a large portion of the job-seeking community that were wholesale rejecting this, our clients wouldn’t find the tool useful… This thing would be chronically underperforming for our clients. And we’re just not seeing that—we’re se…

Half the benefit of ai screening is upper management being able to put in race/religion/private-data-purchased restrictions without the HR knowing about these illegal settings

+1

Offloading of liability / responsibility to complex systems, particularly AI, has been a trend for at least two decades.

I hope society sees past this excuse.

Re: Job-seekers are dodging AI interviewers

#669

Post by immibis » Mon, Aug 04, 2025, 9:27 PM UTC

betaby wrote: post #95

nikolayasdf123 wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> except they forget people also need money to buy their goods. this is why we having population collapse

We don't, fertility rate is 2.24 which is with curent medical advancement is above replacement rate.

In places which don't have this structure.

Re: Job-seekers are dodging AI interviewers

#670

Post by achierius » Mon, Aug 04, 2025, 9:29 PM UTC

os2warpman wrote: post #535

HaZeust wrote: post #310

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Don't ever let anyone brainwash you into thinking we don't have the money and guns either.

Guns are useless. Everyone who believes guns are some kind of savior or last-ditch protector is fucking stupid. There is a reason why, during westward expansion, the first thing towns did when they got two nickels to rub together to buy bricks to build a church was ban guns. There are so many real-world examples of guns being useless that it defies logic and belief that people cling to the myth. There are so few exam…

What exactly are you saying here? Are you saying that guns can't defeat a modern military, or that it would be better if we just always let those in power do what they will? Because you're mixing the two, here and in the comments. You accept multiple times that guns can be used with success to throw off a modern military, but each time you do you pivot to trying to argue that the revolt was pointless anyways. Are you saying that no matter what the government does, no matter what it takes from you, no matter what crimes they commit -- it would always be preferable to just lie down and take it?

Because I can tell you, most of your countrymen do not agree. Most of humanity doesn't agree. And as long as there are so many examples -- from the French Revolution to Vietnam -- of people rising up against their oppressors, people will hope that should times become hard enough, they could do the same.