Job-seekers are dodging AI interviewers • Hacker News Board

Re: Job-seekers are dodging AI interviewers

#911

Post by jodrellblank » Thu, Aug 07, 2025, 6:06 PM UTC

FirmwareBurner wrote: post #618

jodrellblank wrote: post #281

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It does! > "The prevalence of overweight and obesity is rising dramatically in children as well as in adults. Between 1975 and 2016, the prevalence of obesity in Europe rose 138%, with a 21% rise between 2006 and 2016.1 The prevalence of overweight rose by 51% between 1975 and 2016, and by 8% between 2006 and 2016. It is expected that by 2030, over half of Europe will live with obesity – up to 89% in some countries.…

>No, you're one of many people who believes they are immune to marketing. Then why am I not eating McDs and Coke? Could it be that some people have developed self control?

Did you develop self control? As a conscious choice? Are you continuously tempted to eat McD's and drink Coke and contiunuously pushing back on it? Is it a constant, moment by moment pressure you are putting endless effort into resisting?

Or do you just magically not want to, you don't know why, you never worked for it or earned it, but you're boasting about it anyway?

Re: Job-seekers are dodging AI interviewers

#912

Post by Shocka1 » Thu, Aug 07, 2025, 7:28 PM UTC

limininsklyy wrote: post #857

ponector wrote: post #720

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Usually the interviewer has particular definition in mind and you need to guess it to pass to the next stages.

Yup. I have been rejected once because I discussed a variety of options to harden a system instead of blurting out "VPN" as they wanted. They told me that after I discussed some trade offs in security for a little bit.

Young in my career I bombed a five person panel interview once with a bunch of questions like this.

One of them I remember being especially unfair - "if one of our systems connections goes down, how would you troubleshoot it"? I had what I thought was a great answer, reviewing logs, looking for errors, verifying the server or system had internet access, etc... They informed me that the correct answer was checking that the ethernet cable was plugged in...

Along with feeling completely defeated after the interview (since I really needed a job at the time), I felt like it was an extremely loaded question and my answer should have gotten a +1, especially since my answer discussed internet access. I did dodge a bullet though. That startup failed 15 months after my interview.

Re: Job-seekers are dodging AI interviewers

#913

Post by trwy1990 » Fri, Aug 08, 2025, 3:28 AM UTC

I know someone who founded one of these companies, and they seem to be doing well financially, just closed another funding round. Privately, he admits he’s in it purely for the money, having started with a crypto scheme before pivoting. Publicly, though, he spins a story about his bad experiences with interviews, inherent biases, and so on.

To me, these folks are nothing more than grifters, milking the cut-throat, penny-scraping era of capitalism.

Re: Job-seekers are dodging AI interviewers

#914

Post by naet » Sat, Aug 09, 2025, 5:38 PM UTC

kjkjadksj wrote: post #707

naet wrote: post #473

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you need a job in a tough job market you can't really afford to be picky about the opportunities. If I need a job I'm willing to put up with just about anything to get it, because the alternative is potential financial ruin for my family in a country with weak social safety nets. The last entry level job my company posted got over two thousand applicants in less than 24 hours before they paused submissions. I don'…

Did you put it on linkedin easyapply? That is part of the issue. So many applications I have done where its like 1 click to apply. How is this useful to people on either end? I have no clue about the job. They hardly know anything about me. game theory tells me to apply for all of these even if they are hardly relevant and the lack of friction enables it. You want fewer candidates? Just post it on your website perhap…

We only posted it on our company website.

Re: Job-seekers are dodging AI interviewers

#915

Post by glenngillen » Tue, Aug 12, 2025, 3:59 AM UTC

zx8080 wrote: post #888

glenngillen wrote: post #787

Earlier quoted context omitted.

One of the refreshing things about the Amazon/AWS hiring approach was basically this. Did we agree this person can do the job? First one to get to a yes gets an offer. No interviewing all the candidates and stack ranking and trying juggle them to have a plan A and plan B (though people could influence that somewhat through scheduling). First qualified candidate succeeds and everyone gets back to work.

> No interviewing all the candidates and stack ranking and trying juggle them to have a plan A and plan B (though people could influence that somewhat through scheduling). What do you mean by this?

A lot of places I've worked end up coming up with a prioritised list of who they think they want to hire as candidates are going through the pipeline. The first preference for various reasons might not be the first to finish the interview process. What typically happens is if a strong candidate finishes the process first they'll get a "our team need time to discuss their feedback, we'll get back to you in 10 days" type of answer. The X days is often less to do with the team getting together to compare notes and more to do with when another candidate is expected to finish their interview. At which point the two candidates can be compared to each other and a decision made. There's also the expectation that if _we_ rank someone highly in our pipeline they are probably high in someone else's and so we might just lose them to a better offer. So having a plan b to send an offer to is useful.

At Amazon there wasn't meant to be that kind of candidate comparisons/ranking. If you're first through and pass you get an offer. But... if a team felt strongly about a specific person it was entirely feasible to prioritise them by giving them first option on potential interview dates, and offering later dates to other people. Thereby increasing the chances the preferred candidate was the first one to successfully complete the process.

Re: Job-seekers are dodging AI interviewers

#916

Post by ludicity » Tue, Aug 12, 2025, 10:44 PM UTC

nlawalker wrote: post #816

ludicity wrote: post #704

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I took a run at recruiting recently and it's so easy to outperform recruiters that it's honestly depressing. Just replying to emails at the times I promised made candidates self-report that I'm the best recruiter they've ever worked with.

Depends on your definition of “outperform”… if recruiters were being evaluated on what the candidates think of them they’d try harder in that respect.

Companies don't like recruiters either, and they're the ones willing to pay me!

Re: Job-seekers are dodging AI interviewers

#917

Post by baconbrand » Thu, Aug 14, 2025, 3:11 AM UTC

agent327 wrote: post #892

baconbrand wrote: post #538

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You haven’t listed anything unique to socialism. Capitalism also works well until you’re poor and don’t want to live right next to, I don’t know, a bitcoin mining facility or something. Authoritarians are the ones running down dissidents with tanks and spinning up concentration camps, not their economic systems.

And you don't think that an economic system that denies every aspect of freedom (down to, and including the freedom to decide what, or even whether you get to eat, what you wear, where you'll live, what your job is, etc.) can possibly exist without also introducing a very hefty dose of authoritarianism?

I think you’re very confused about the definition of socialism

Re: Job-seekers are dodging AI interviewers

#918

Post by selfhoster11 » Sat, Aug 16, 2025, 2:27 PM UTC

whynotminot wrote: post #895

selfhoster11 wrote: post #885

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Last time I had access to o3 on a $20 subscription, the usage limit was laughably low. Accessing it through an API is much better value - I get over 1000 interactions with a much more controllable system message, which is a lot better than ChatGPT Plus.

Was that a pretty long time ago? Because I use o3 daily and have never hit a limit. The only "limit" I have really with o3 is my patience -- it's a slow model for regular use. If I don't need its intelligence I'll use o4-mini or even 4o for speed, saving o3 for the prompts that really need it. These days the only model I find I get rate-limited on frustratingly quickly is 4.5. It's clear OpenAI does not really want y…

Checking recently, it looks like o3 is limited to 100 messages a week on ChatGPT Plus. That's not really a "relaxed conversation" type of allowance when you really want to get into the weeds on a subject that interests you.