From both sides of the table, I have a strict philosophy that the candidate's time is the more valuable commodity.

Thus in any situation where a company is offloading internal effort but still requiring the candidate to put in time & effort, that's a company I would not want to work for. This is the ultimate expression of that bullcrap.

> Still, stretched-thin HR teams say it’s the only way to handle thousands of applicants.

I get the impression this is because it's too easy for candidates to apply for a job. I wonder if there is a way to put pressure on job seekers to be more selective about where they apply? (Or otherwise for a company to allow a candidate that's only applied to a handful of jobs to skip the AI?)

I've left interviews because they were late or unprepared when I showed up at their business. I've turned down interviews where they wanted an hour long personality test beforehand. I've turned down interviews where they wanted to include irrelevant math problems to evaluate how I work under pressure. I've turned down offers because the managers didn't answer basic questions I had about company culture.

But I'm also at a point in my life where I can do that, and I feel absolutely blessed to be in that situation.

For unemployed or new workers, the world is a fucking nightmare.

And it's all because the people with X (in this case, jobs) see their time as WAY more valuable than the people without X. It's, quite frankly, disgusting, dehumanizing, and depressing.

The entire world is devaluing interpersonal communication and the humanity of the people around us and it feels out of control.

When I hire, my baseline assumption is that I'm wasting the candidates time, so I try to keep it succinct and relevant the entire time. I wish more people did as well.

There is no mutual respect.