Ukv
a year ago
I think it's probably inevitable that something like this will happen eventually, but I worry that it makes the cost of an interview too asymmetrical. Companies could "interview" effectively all applicants, since it requires no time and negligible expenses on their side, while job seekers still have to prepare and go through each interview (say, 10X more on average) despite the company having no real intention to hire them.
atShourya
a year ago
But this also has a silver lining right? Candidates gain the opportunity to be a lot more descriptive about their fit and make their case better.
And companies get actionable insights that are far more revealing that a 1 page resume?
Ukv
a year ago
Candidates would increasingly be making their case to a brick wall - companies running "just in case" or "may as well keep a pulse on the market" automated interviews in the same way they post ghost jobs positions on listings. I think ability to make their case better is only really a positive for candidates if it's associated with increased chance of being hired, but here that expectation gets kind of broken if even candidates who make their case very well have a significantly lower chance of being hired from that interview.
Something like automated review of the candidate's existing projects/website (linked in their application) seems more reasonable, in that I don't need to recreate my projects for each job application. Automated interviews just seem like they'd make it too easy for companies to have a flippant disregard for job-seekers' time, because the costs of running thousands of interviews would be almost entirely borne by others.
Long term, I think spreading the remaining cost (i.e. having the company compensate interviewees) is likely the less-wasteful way to restore symmetry, rather than mandating that the current cost on the company's side is reintroduced (i.e. that interviewers must be human).