> It does 100 interviews, and it’s going to hand back the best 10 to the hiring manager, and then the human takes over,” he says.

Yikes. One thing that's incredibly important about reaching the interview-stage of a job application has been that there is a parity, or even an imbalance favoring the candidate, in human time usage. The company's people (often multiple people at once) have to spend time with the candidate to conduct the interview, so there are stakes for scheduling an interview. The company is investing something into that interaction, so you as a candidate can have some faith that your time is being valued. In the very least, your 45 minute interview is valued at 45*n minutes of company labor for each interviewer.

Admitting right off the bat that you're going to waste the time of 90% of your applicants without these stakes is just wildly disrespectful.

▲

sumtechguy 6 days ago | parent | next [-]

> Admitting right off the bat that you're going to waste the time of 90% of your applicants without these stakes is just wildly disrespectful.

They were already doing this. Now it is just more automated. You didnt have the right keywords. 2pts into the basket. Too long (meaning old/bad team fit), gone. You worked for a company that might have some sort of backend NDA, gone. Wrong school, gone. Wrong whatever, gone. You were never getting to the interviewer in the first place. You were already filtered.

The reality is if they have 1 position open. They get 300 resumes. 299 of them need to go away. It has been like this forever. That AI is doing it does not change anything really. Getting anyone to just talk to you has been hard for a long time already. With AI it is now even worse.

Had one dude who made a mistake and closed out one of my applications once. 2 years after I summited it. Couldn't resist not sending a to the second number days/hours/mins how long it took them. Usually they just ghost you. I seriously doubt the sat for 2 years wondering if they should talk to me. I was already filtered 2 years earlier.

▲

margalabargala 6 days ago | parent | next [-]

> They get 300 resumes. 299 of them need to go away. It has been like this forever. That AI is doing it does not change anything really.

That's not really true.

From the candidate, there's the effort to submit a resume (low), and then the effort to personally get on a video call and spend 45 minutes talking (high).

Discarding 290 out of the 300 resumes without talking to the candidate is way more acceptable, because the effort required from the company is about the same as the effort required by the candidate.

Asking the candidate to do an interview with an AI flips this; the company can en masse require high effort from the candidate without matching it.

	▲	sumtechguy 6 days ago \| parent [-]
		> Asking the candidate to do an interview with an AI flips this; the company can en masse require high effort from the candidate without matching it. I don't disagree. These systems are already awful to get into. Some have dozens of pages you have to fill in for your 'resume'. Just for at the end to ask for docx file of your resume. So we probably will get that PLUS this AI stuff (you know just in case /s).

▲

cal_dent 6 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

It is what it is. But surely the difference here, and a pretty galling difference, is that the 299 candidates are now “wasting” double the amount of time than pre-ai times. Time spent doing the traditional application process + now an additional time talking to a bot to simply get to the same dead end

▲

gwbas1c 6 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

> They get 300 resumes. 299 of them need to go away. It has been like this forever.

I doubt that. The number of applicants per job has gone up over the past few decades. Likewise, the number of jobs that people apply to has gone up too.

▲

sagarm 6 days ago | parent | prev [-]

An applicant doesn't need to do 45 minutes to prepare a job specific resume, unlike the interview.

▲

eddd-ddde 6 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

But see the other end of the exchange. This is going to allow filtering out people that had no business applying in the first place yet increase the resume noise for the rest of us. For the good role candidates it sounds like this may increase your success rate.

I.e. if 1000 applications get 10 human interviews before, your chances of being picked are minimal, but if 100 get ai interviews, you have a bigger chance of standing out in the sea of fake resumes.

	▲	johnnyanmac 6 days ago \| parent [-]
		You're making a very generous assumption that 1. An Ai can truly find the best candidate (spoilers: the best candidate is not one who spouts out the most buzzwords) 2. The Ai will not profile based on illegal factors, given that many of these interviews insist on a camera (even pre-llm there are many biases on everything from voice assistants to camera filters to seat belt design). 3. That humans will spend anytime refining andnirerwting an AI to improve beyond hitting those 2 factors, among many others. What's the incentive if they are fine automating out the most important part of a company's lifeblood as is.

▲

turok 3 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Maybe I am doing it wrong as an Engineering Director, but technical round 2's are with me for 90 minutes. I often explicitly tell the candidate that I respect their time and that is why they are getting 90 minutes of mine, and not a take home. It is exhausting, but we have gotten some excellent hires this way.

▲

geraldwhen 6 days ago | parent | prev [-]

How do you square that against receiving, literally, 500 fake resumes, mostly from Indians, on day one? They all match the job posting.

You can’t filter by name because that’s discrimination. I suspect AI is being used to eliminate the fraud, this exact scenario.

AI can’t, yet, be accused of breaking equal opportunity employment laws.

▲

nijave 6 days ago | parent [-]

Well, I suppose same way you reduce spam and abuse anywhere else.

Raise the cost enough it's not worth it. Some middle ground could be requiring mailed in applications. That's a marginal cost for a real applicant but a higher cost for someone trying to send swathes of applications out.

It might seem backwards but there are plenty of solid non technical solutions to problems.

You could also do automated reputation checks where a system vets a candidate based on personal information to determine if they are real but doesn't reveal this information in the interview process.

That's how all government things tend to work (identity verification)

▲

geraldwhen 6 days ago | parent | next [-]

The people are usually real in my experience, although I’ve dealt with fake people a few times. Different person showing up to the office vs the video interview, man obviously just off camera giving answers. That second one is probably AI now.

HR attempts to prescreen on resume match. I’ll never see the person who matches on half the skills and is a real person. I’ll only see the fraud until I accidentally find someone who has ever used the technologies on their resume.

▲

ixsploit 5 days ago | parent | prev [-]

> Raise the cost enough it's not worth it.

Which is exactly what is happening here.

	▲	nijave 5 days ago \| parent [-]
		It sounds like they've gone and done it backwards. Raised the cost of legitimate applicants while keeping the cost the same for the spammers