Comment by koffiezet

6 months ago

When interviewers use LLM gargbage to filter out participants, expect candidates to do the same.

I don't use LLMs to filter out participants and I expect candidates not to use LLMs to cheat.

  • Some first/introductory interviews are now "powered" by AI. As in, the interviewee gets an AI bot that evaluates them. I'd not be surprised if this takes over and becomes standard.

    • For now, this is perhaps a blessing in disguise: it tells you that a company is all aboard the hype train and that leadership is seriously lacking in critical thinking and judgment. That can certainly save you from wasting more time with them.

      I really, really hope this does not become a "standard". Ugh.

    • Don't candidates also get a say? If a company asked me to jump through that hoop I'd have a simple one-word response. "No"

      If enough good candidates have that reaction, it will become a prestige marker for a company to not use AI screening to give them access to the best candidates

  • Have you tried putting yourself in the perspective of the humans trying to find a job in a market that is turning over now and was already dystopian before AI was injected into a dystopian, hellish process of “putting on a tie and using a firm handshake” to apply into the void.

    • I'm afraid that thanks to this escalation hiring will be even more IRL-connection based.

    • This is so stupid. One of the main reasons it's become a dystopian, hellish process is because people cheat; proliferating cheating will make it even worse.

      Lying and cheating on a job interview isn't a victimless crime. You're harming the company and all your coworkers when they hire you into a job you're not qualified for; you're harming all the other actually qualified candidates that didn't get hired instead; you're harming yourself, when your salary comes from a company who rely on you to give something you can't give them.

      4 replies →