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

841–850 of 918 posts

Re: Job-seekers are dodging AI interviewers

#841

Post by sillyfluke »

epolanski wrote: post #320
siva7 wrote: post #114

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Somehow i would rather stay homeless or prostitute myself than throwing my dignity away by letting an a.i. assess me over the whole job interview. Yet this is where we are heading. Being graded by openai (and co). Iris scanned by openai. Who knows what comes next..

We have been allowing countless of different algorithms and tests to cross us out from decades. I do agree AI feels too much, but how's that different from companies sending me timed puzzles, riddles, random logic tests, and so on?

The wasting of the applicant's time while applying for a specific job I think should be the secondary concern for the applicant in this system.

The primary concern should be volunarily feeding your personal information to the intermediate AI interview Saas companies along with the backend SotA AI model suppliers (OpenAI etc), so they can turn around and sell your personal info as premium services to the companies you're applying to, revealing which other companies you applied to, how many companies you have applied to, and your performance in those interviews allowing the companies that are paying for that premium service to filter you out, shadowban you, or lowball you based on that information.

And since you never talk to another human, you will never know whether the AI flagging you as a bad applicant pretty much nuked your chances for future jobs.

Re: Job-seekers are dodging AI interviewers

#842

Post by simianparrot »

kelipso wrote: post #605
simianparrot wrote: post #474

Earlier quoted context omitted.

At the cost of the majority in rural areas living so far below what any modern country considers poverty that it’s hard to articulate. But sure. If you’re in Shenzhen or Shanghai it works «great». Until you step out of line ever so slightly.

China got all of those rural folks out of extreme poverty too.

Only because they redefined the definition of poverty in rural areas to be around $2.30 a day (inflation adjusted). The medium daily income in major cities like Shanghai is $33 a day (inflation adjusted).

Obviously living rurally is a lot cheaper, but this difference is _massive_. We're talking a 14x difference in daily income.

With China, you always have to look deeper than the surface level reports. Just like you would anywhere else, but particularly with China because faking it is accepted as long as it saves face.

Re: Job-seekers are dodging AI interviewers

#844

Post by SergeAx »

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…

What if you talk to a real person for 45 minutes, still never get those 45 minutes back, and they ghost you anyway? Would you feel better?

What if they did not ghost you, but sent you a very polite LLM-generated rejection letter with generic reasons like "we decided to proceed with another candidate"?

Re: Job-seekers are dodging AI interviewers

#845

Post by makeitdouble »

black_puppydog wrote: post #840
makeitdouble wrote: post #836

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> the AI is acting in an official capacity Probably not. The same way if your first interviewer tells you the company will pay 5 billions dollars each year if you tattoo their logo on your neck and no official contract is otherwise exchanged, when you come get your check the only one potentially liable will be the dipshit that lied to you. There is such thing as an oral contract, but it will be a hard battle to prove…

That would be an acceptable outcome. I'll accept the 5 billion whether they come from the employer or from OpenAI. :)

At this point I'll assume each AI instance is liable for itself for what it says/does. Conveniently it dies with the process that spawned it.

Re: Job-seekers are dodging AI interviewers

#846

Post by mnky9800n »

achierius wrote: post #399
mnky9800n wrote: post #395

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don’t think ai interviews warrant gun violence.

What about being forced out of your home, onto the street, to starve or freeze to death?

If ai interviews are doing this to you then we live in different worlds.

Re: Job-seekers are dodging AI interviewers

#847

Post by mnky9800n »

phkahler wrote: post #428
mnky9800n wrote: post #395

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don’t think ai interviews warrant gun violence.

>> I don’t think ai interviews warrant gun violence. What about gun violence against the machine? ;-)

I don’t want to remember nothing. Nothing. You understand? And I want to be rich. You know, someone important. Like an actor.

Re: Job-seekers are dodging AI interviewers

#848

Post by rightbyte »

CraigJPerry wrote: post #575
tines wrote: post #267

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Conservation of energy is a useful, widely applicable model, not a universally true law, so I think you proved their point.

Conservation of energy is universally true given that you or i cannot travel at the speed of light. Whereas supply and demand is obviously not universal and i'm not just talking about Giffen goods, Veblen goods or the Chivas Regal effect. No i'm talking specifically about ceteris paribus. Application of ceteris paribus is to step away from reality, the more you do it, the further away from reality you've gotten. The…

I was going to write that supply and demand is like a 'linearization' or some other regression around a point, but looking up "ceteris paribus" I'll have to thank you for forcing a good phrase upon me. :)

Re: Job-seekers are dodging AI interviewers

#849

Post by rightbyte »

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…

> 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.

That has to be due to policy failure of forcing people on benefits to apply for jobs to get benefits, even if they already have applied to all suitable jobs there are right now?

Re: Job-seekers are dodging AI interviewers

#850

Post by AdilG »

Hi everyone,

I'm building an AI recruitment platform and your comments really resonated with me - they really show why the current approach is broken.

We actually created this mess by making applications too easy - technology removed friction in the hiring process and now people click apply to jobs without even reading the JD.

Worst still with genAI people that may not be a good fit for the roles they apply, use AI to tweak their CVs to match the job descriptions and become a good fit on paper.

The results is that companies get flooded with irrelevant applications and respond with more friction, whether that is more screening rounds, more interviewing or AI interviews that add the friction back.

We're trying to solve this by adding good friction instead of bad friction. The AI should be working for candidates too, not just extracting value from them. Would love your thoughts on what would actually make an AI interview worthwhile from a candidate perspective.

Post reply on HN