> If you need a job in a tough job market you can't really afford to be picky about the opportunities

If your odds of getting hired after wasting all that time are 1000 to one, might be smarter to look for alternate pipelines with better odds where your time benefits you regardless of outcome.

Did you put it on linkedin easyapply? That is part of the issue. So many applications I have done where its like 1 click to apply. How is this useful to people on either end? I have no clue about the job. They hardly know anything about me. game theory tells me to apply for all of these even if they are hardly relevant and the lack of friction enables it.

You want fewer candidates? Just post it on your website perhaps. You will then be limited to more ideal candidates that have identified your business as a potential fit for their skillsets, and have bothered to visit your careers page and put up with your own sisyphean system to repost what information is in the resume onto your form fields for hr who apparently cannot read a resume.

> From a company perspective, the AI interviews don't even have to work well, they just have to get that massive number down to something vaguely manageable.

Rule out everyone who isn't already local to the job location. That's an easy filter right there.

In this industry they do. You know that companies using these tools are exercising minimal effort and due diligence, and that should be taken into consideration before participating. It only makes sense to play the high-volume application game if each application takes negligible effort to submit. The people I've known that have gone that route have had <1% success rates. For quality candidates, a lower-volume targeted approach will yield the best jobs and retain your sanity.

Well, not with that attitude, they don't.

Boycotts are not pain-free. They require everyone to stick together and refuse to participate in behaviors that are not acceptable. I'd argue that most job seekers don't have the luxury to allow themselves to be diminished into irrelevance.

Most Americans have never heard of a strike fund.

Why not do it before you need a job? While you're comfortable, submit your application for open roles and reject the AI interviewer.

The good ones do. Companies may not see problems initially, but they may eventually find their candidate quality has dropped.

Especially in the current American economy. It's a very intentional power balance

> companies that use Greenhouse for applications

What's wrong with Greenhouse? I've seen several companies use it, and other than being just another bog-standard applicant tracking system I haven't seen anything particularly bad. I would love to know what the scoop is here.

> every company using one of these is actually filtering for desperation

Exactly. I have a very good job at a name brand tech company and regularly get reached out to by recruiters. I don’t tolerate BS like information asymmetry, take home tests, AI evaluations, etc.

The whole situation kindof reminds me of online dating, the top 10% of people are targeted by the other 90%. I wonder if there is some common phenomenon underlying both online dating and job matching because they are eerily similar.

Much like in dating, the answer may be to reject the whole online recruiting system and resort to in person interactions where symmetry is restored.

Unfortunately it is possible to live without a romantic partner, but in non-socialized nations it is not possible to live without an income.

> If you use this kind of software to hire, you are the loser. The good talent doesn’t need you—it’s the other way around.

Kinda like stack ranking for layoffs, especially when done regularly. The idea of cutting the fat always seems appealing, but it also signals things are going to get unpleasant, and top talent tends to jump ship early unless you're paying top dollar to make it all worthwhile. The ones you wanted to retain the most are the first out the door, and within a few years, the only ones left are those who don't have great prospects elsewhere, frequently with reduced output since the stress induced by the omnipresent prospect of layoffs isn't great for morale or productivity.

So until a majority is reached, it stays a collective action problem that's a loss for anyone who doesn't participate. Apes apart weak.