21 ms·

May I ask why? I would never approve the use of async interviews further down the pipeline, but for screening purposes (from a candidate POV) I personally don'

• parliament32 11mo ago
  Because interviews are a two-way street. If you can't commit the time to interview and want to offload it to AI, why shouldn't I also have AI take the interview for me? Or you do you think my time is worth less than yours? This is pretty gross, honestly. I recommend some reflection.
  • radug14 11mo ago
    Your time is definitely not worth less than the company you are applying to. And I 100% agree interviews should not be offloaded to AI. This is a screening interview, and the AI component simply assists the hiring manager, it does not automate the outcome in any way.
    • riku_iki 11mo ago
      But we don't know if hiring person spends quality time on looking at all these recordings and transcripts, or just do some superficial keyword matching thing or AI signal.
      • vladg1994 11mo ago
        I agree with you on this one sure, but at the same time you wouldn't know if the hiring manager would be spending time looking over your CV if you send it. I don't see where's the fault of the app.
        • deleted 11mo ago
          [deleted]
        • riku_iki 11mo ago
          It takes 5 sec for me to send CV, but here you ask for 20 mins commitment from my side.
    • parliament32 11mo ago
      So you wouldn't be opposed to me using an AI to solve your "challenge" or whatever it is? After all, this is just a screening interview, the AI component is simply assisting me.
      • radug14 11mo ago
        Absolutely, you can solve the challenge in any way you like. You can use AI, StackOverflow, or a friend you have in the room.
• yannyu 11mo ago
  If as a hiring organization, you aren't willing to spend the effort, time, and money to provide a good recruiting process, that's a huge red flag for the kind of candidates you want and the kind of employee experience you provide. If you're willing to cut costs in finding candidates, that could signal you're willing to cut costs for retaining candidates too.
  • esafak 11mo ago
    This is a screen, though; they are still going to interview you if you pass. The alternative is to screen candidates otherwise in a way that may lead you to be culled (e.g., by your resume) without a chance to get your foot in the door.
    • gpm 11mo ago
      They are still going to interview if you choose to move forwards with this one sided time sink [1], and you pass. The first half of that criteria will filter out many of the good candidates. Which as yanyu says is a signal the company isn't "willing to spend the effort, time, and money to provide a good recruiting process, [which is] a huge red flag for the kind of candidates you want and the kind of employee experience you provide". Which circles around and creates even more incentive for good candidates not to participate. There's no doubt a market on both sides for hiring mediocre candidates. Approximately everyone has a job after all, not just the best people, but a tool like this is clearly optimizing for that not for excellence. [1] See the excellent description of why this is problematic as a candidate who values your own time here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45801853 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45801853
    • yannyu 11mo ago
      That's what makes people feel valued and human, needing to get past a robot before they're allowed to talk to people. And to be clear, I think hiring today is completely broken already. This kind of thing is just one more step in the direction of marginalizing people who are already struggling to find work. In an already broken hiring system, these approaches to "save engineering time" or "drive a more efficient hiring process" exacerbate the divide between those who have jobs and those who are desperate to get a fair shot, and that’s what feels truly dehumanizing.
• rendall 11mo ago
  Back in the day, some kind of online sticker company needed a developer. I submitted my resume and they told me via email I needed to pass an online test. The testing was very similar to your company, only of course no AI. I was nervous. Super nervous. Shaking. Psyched myself up for an entire day, then logged in and absolutely crushed it. Crushed that test. It was hard but easier than I expected. Passed 100%. The sticker company then emailed me that they chose someone else, somebody else had a better resume, even though there was no interview. The test was cheap for them, but cost me. So cheap for this sticker company that they could afford to consider my resume only after I had crushed their dumb-ass test. There needs to be some cost or pain for the interviewers to signal that they actually care. So, to answer your question, if a company were to outsource their screening calls, it signals to me that they do not have the time to understand their candidates. They simply do not care, which means they don't care for their employees either.
  • radug14 11mo ago
    Again I want to make it clear that the AI is not driving any decisions, it just summarizes some data points. The technical screening call typically happens after an initial screening chat with HR or the hiring manager. The tech screening interview comes in after that.
    • rendall 11mo ago
      I tell you, this is not a new idea. The only new bit is that AI is slapped on, but it's been done. There is a reason it's not widespread practice. Be honest with yourself: if a company gave you a contract and they decided to do it like the sticker company, test first then check the resume, you would still take their money.
      • rendall 11mo ago
        Also, every company has its own unique need. Are you going to tailor your test for every company? Some will need fast JavaScript, some will need slow, deliberate FP. No single test will cover all of these needs. A serious company would never outsource their initial contact to AI.