Item id: 41847203
4 hours ago
As an applicant, I say nay. I wouldn't trust an AI to do the job correctly, and it would make me question the company's judgement enough that I would no longer want to work there.
Also, from the employer's side, wouldn't doing this eliminate one of the major things you learn from testing applicants? You learn a bit about how their minds work, which can give you an idea of how well they'd fit into the team.
6 hours 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.
6 hours 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?
3 hours 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).
6 hours ago
SW Engineer here.
Speaking to someone, even over video chat, is very information dense.
Their mannerism, how quickly they arrive at answers, how they communicate during their process, are they easy to talk to, do they give the sense that they know what they’re doing or are they typing every question to chatgpt.
These things are very important signals that I look for in potential coworkers, especially for juniors, where their culture fit and willingness to explore problems is worth more than their experience.
These are the kinds of things you’d 100% lose with Ai Interviews. They are an extremely poor replacement for actual interviews.
Also, as a candidate, I would be incredibly insulted if I scheduled an interview, put time aside, and the company I’m applying to didn’t even care to put a human on the call. Why not just let candidates write an essay at that point.
7 hours ago
Anyone experienced in interviewing can tell a good candidate from a bad one 5 minutes into the interview. there's too much human judgement and relationship building.
not sure how AI can replace that.
7 hours ago
At first I thought this was a coderbytez or hacker rank replacement, but now I understand it's meant to replace first or second round live-coding interviews?
Does it do both? is it expensive?
6 hours ago
quite bullish that ai agents will start doing the majority of early interviews. curious to see how it progresses.
7 hours ago
this looks great on paper. Leetcode and hackerrank doesn't seem to do anything anymore. curious to know how you score performance?
7 hours ago
7 hours ago