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

771–780 of 918 posts

Re: Job-seekers are dodging AI interviewers

#771

Post by RugnirViking »

sgerenser wrote: post #757
at-fates-hands wrote: post #276

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>> if they have open source (or if an internal transfer, internal) code I can review. I give you a lot of credit for doing this. When I was still in development, I had a pretty robust github page, a sizable portfolio of stuff I had built and other side projects I was working on with various other platforms like Salesforce. Not once did an interviewer review any of that. I would find myself referring to my github page…

Unfortunately, most people’s GitHub accounts are just a smattering of forked repos with maybe one or two (or no) commits done by them. Unless you look closely, it would be easy to be fooled by the average candidates github that is essentially meaningless.

then don't hire most people?

idk, I really can't imagine hiring someone that not only had such a github profile, but saw fit to send it to the interviewer

look for repos that aren't forked, especially one that doesn't have all or most of its code committed in a single commit (i.e. forked with extra steps)

Re: Job-seekers are dodging AI interviewers

#772

Post by transcriptase »

ghxst wrote: post #644
akudha wrote: post #422

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

"What is an interface?" reminds me of one of my favorite interview questions: "What happens when you open a browser and visit a webpage?". There’s no single right answer and when asked in the right way I find it helps surface knowledge and skills candidates might not otherwise bring up. Some go into OS internals, others talk about networking, some focus on UI and page load performance. Even when candidates expect the…

“324 unrelated companies are made aware of you visiting the webpage via a mountain of JavaScript, tracking pixels, cookies, and telemetry, and then your browser renders megabytes of code to display kilobytes of content, while prompting you to make an account or download an app”

Re: Job-seekers are dodging AI interviewers

#773

Post by Beijinger »

The problem are costs. I am not sure I do mind an AI interview. But the problem:

1. You get 100 Applications and you do 5 Interviews with the top candidates.

2. You get 100 Applications and you do 100 AI interviews. Just in case.

Not worth my time.

Re: Job-seekers are dodging AI interviewers

#774

Post by arjvik »

Animats wrote: post #636
akudha wrote: post #422

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?)

Holy shit, I’d totally pay for this!

Re: Job-seekers are dodging AI interviewers

#775

Post by johnnyanmac »

SV_BubbleTime wrote: post #552
franktankbank wrote: post #519

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Try and convince me that HR departments aren’t majority jobs programs for the less intellectually fortunate. It would be an uphill battle.

My main counterargument here is that many office jobs don't need "intellectual fortune". Society needs to be honest and know when you just need people for accountability's sake, for small and/or odd ends to meet, or to manage clerical tasks that pile up. And remember that humans who do a role for a whike get really good at it, if you don't fire them after a few months to make earnings calls look 1% better.

Title inflation is a phenomenon spread far beyond tech.we shouldn't shame "learnable on the job work", but we don't need to pretend everyone is a VP either. HR in this case is there to allegedly help resolve problems with workers (reality: there to help prevent or alleviate the workload of lawyers). They have no business in recruiting past maybe a behavioral call.

Re: Job-seekers are dodging AI interviewers

#777

Post by franktankbank »

johnnyanmac wrote: post #775
SV_BubbleTime wrote: post #552

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Try and convince me that HR departments aren’t majority jobs programs for the less intellectually fortunate. It would be an uphill battle.

My main counterargument here is that many office jobs don't need "intellectual fortune". Society needs to be honest and know when you just need people for accountability's sake, for small and/or odd ends to meet, or to manage clerical tasks that pile up. And remember that humans who do a role for a whike get really good at it, if you don't fire them after a few months to make earnings calls look 1% better. Title infl…

> Society needs to be honest

> They have no business in recruiting past maybe a behavioral call.

Re: Job-seekers are dodging AI interviewers

#778

Post by johnnyanmac »

eddd-ddde wrote: post #509
bobro wrote: post #301

> It does 100 interviews, and it’s going to hand back the best 10 to the hiring manager, and then the human takes over,” he says. Yikes. One thing that's incredibly important about reaching the interview-stage of a job application has been that there is a parity, or even an imbalance favoring the candidate, in human time usage. The company's people (often multiple people at once) have to spend time with the candidate…

But see the other end of the exchange. This is going to allow filtering out people that had no business applying in the first place yet increase the resume noise for the rest of us. For the good role candidates it sounds like this may increase your success rate. I.e. if 1000 applications get 10 human interviews before, your chances of being picked are minimal, but if 100 get ai interviews, you have a bigger chance of…

You're making a very generous assumption that

1. An Ai can truly find the best candidate (spoilers: the best candidate is not one who spouts out the most buzzwords) 2. The Ai will not profile based on illegal factors, given that many of these interviews insist on a camera (even pre-llm there are many biases on everything from voice assistants to camera filters to seat belt design).

3. That humans will spend anytime refining andnirerwting an AI to improve beyond hitting those 2 factors, among many others. What's the incentive if they are fine automating out the most important part of a company's lifeblood as is.

Re: Job-seekers are dodging AI interviewers

#779

Post by abathur »

mcv wrote: post #582
akudha wrote: post #551

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It is not about not knowing some topic. I am myself an average programmer on my best day and I don't expect candidates to be genius level thinkers. It is the lying, the making stuff up on the spot - like what are they thinking? The blatant arrogance and callousness towards the person/people interviewing them. How hard can it be to say "I don't know" or "I don't use this concept in my daily tasks, but let me try to ex…

This is in fact one of my two requirements when interviewing: I want to hear the candidate say "I don't know" to a question. The other is that I want to hear them talk passionately about some project they once did. Bullshitting is an immediate fail.

You sound incisive :)

It's hard in the moment, but we'd do well to appreciate that not passing a myopic screen is likely a blessing.

Re: Job-seekers are dodging AI interviewers

#780

Post by Nathanba »

the__alchemist wrote: post #206
throwawayoldie wrote: post #169

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"While some worry AI will dehumanize the hiring process, we believe the opposite." "AI will create jobs instead of destroying them." "AI will solve the climate crisis despite doubling or tripling humanity's energy footprint." At some point it became acceptable to lie to the public with a straight face.

This is some I've thought about more lately. It's taboo to use the word "lie" and accuse people of lying... I am attempting to use it in my vocabulary more and more, when appropriate. Which is surprisingly often.

I've been wondering for a while why society only has one word for all the different forms of lying. Lying by omission, lying intentionally, lying because you dont know, lying to save yourself, lying without thinking, lying for self benefit there are more... These should all get their own words so that we can always pinpoint exactly which version we think the other person did instead of having to shout "you lied!!111" and then nobody knows what on earth you are talking about.
Post reply on HN