10 ms·

> If your potential employer is dehumanizing you before you’re on the payroll, how will they treat you once hired? For me, this is the key point. If a company

by JohnFen 8mo ago

> If your potential employer is dehumanizing you before you’re on the payroll, how will they treat you once hired? For me, this is the key point. If a company can't even be bothered to show up for my interview -- when everyone is trying to put their best foot forward -- that bodes very ill for how I'll be treated if I were to work there.

CoastalCoder 8mo ago
I agree in principle. However, having been unemployed for over a year with a family to feed, I learned a little about what I'd put up with to get a job.
- plagiarist 8mo ago
  Yeah this. I hate this planet. So many problems would go away if people could actually afford to make choices.
  - 9rx 8mo ago
    Resource allocation is entirely a social construct. Not being afford something is a 'pretend' state that only exists because everyone agrees to go along with it. Even if a magical unicorn were to step in and start distributing resources perfectly, solving that particular problem, if humans can't even get something as simple as resource allocation right, why are you so sure they won't also screw up everything else to ensure that all other problems remain?
    - roenxi 8mo ago
      > Resource allocation is entirely a social construct. Not being afford something is a 'pretend' state that only exists because everyone agrees to go along with it. That can't exactly be true, because scarcity is a physical limit. If there is exactly 1 apple, it is impossible for 2 people to eat it. That is no social construct. There is a large social element involved, but that in itself is done in such a way as to try and encourage creation of a large amount of stuff to a large number of people. It isn't arbitrary; there are a lot of allocation schemes that lead to mass starvation and poverty. The natural human instincts are beyond terrible at allocating resources; pretty much everyone at this point has discovered that laws and capitalism with some welfare trimmings on the edge is a much better approach than any alternative that got tried.
      - hackable_sand 8mo ago
        That's really funny
      - altruios 8mo ago
        I hear and understand your point. It is not purely a social construct. But how much available farmland to allocate to grow food from the available farmland becomes a political issue. Pricing, distribution... same deal. And considering our (humanity's) food production outmatches our total food calorie/nutrition requirements... any argument using food as an example for scarcity indicates that you may be working with incorrect, or outdated information. And Is "money" a social construct, or is there 'natural' money, some platonic ideal from which all other instantiations of money arise? I'm betting on the former.
        9rx 8mo ago
        > It is not purely a social construct. What else is involved? Despite the inane ramblings of the parent comment, scarcity isn't actually a factor. Allocation occurs because of scarcity. Without scarcity, there is no such thing as allocation. It is the reason for why resource allocation exists entirely a social construct.
        altruios 8mo ago
        While food is not scarce in total, logistics are (at some limit) physics bound. Other resources are currently in higher demand than their current supply: silver for example. So there is nuance.
        9rx 8mo ago
        > Other resources are currently in higher demand than their current supply: silver for example. That, of course, is why we created resource allocation as a social construct. Obviously you fundamentally cannot have allocation without scarcity. But it doesn't answer the question. If resource allocation is not entirely a social construct, are you imagining that resources are also allocated by some kind of natural force? Given the scarcity of silver, maybe the universe decides that you get some and I don't? And if you try to give me yours, contrary to the fabric of the universe, you will be struck down by a bolt of lightning before you can give it to me? What is the "what else" here? This nuance you vaguely refer to but don't say anything about is certainly intriguing. I am looking forward to you completing that chain of thought.
  - dmitrygr 8mo ago
    > So many problems would go away if Writing it like you did implies that a magical solution exists and we are all maliciously withholding it from you. It does not and we are not.
    - john_strinlai 8mo ago
      >implies that a magical solution exists and we are all maliciously withholding it from you i did not get that from what they wrote at all. they sound frustrated. but that does not mean they are frustrated at you specifically.
    - brailsafe 8mo ago
      I disagree with the notion that that's what their word choice implies. Also, there doesn't need be magical solution that's not being implemented for there to clearly be a severely heightened level of precarity in the economy that has a hugely negative impact on people who haven't had time to build a financial safety net, build their careers, or buy a house when it was feasible, in large part due specifically to aggressive, malicious, sometimes coordinated extractions of rent and land value
    - dspillett 8mo ago
      Writing that like that makes you sound like one of those “I didn't get help when I was younger so why should anyone else get help now?” types who highlight their own entitlement and luck by trying to frame others as entitled. You might not be, but it sounds that way to me. And if you think this knee-jerk reaction is unfair, let that be a lesson to you! :)
  - Steve16384 8mo ago
    We need Universal Income.
  - rafaelmn 8mo ago
    The only reason you can "afford" anything is because other people do shit they would rather not, but do so for the money. If people could actually "afford to make choices" you'd find out pretty soon how dependent you are on others doing the dirty work for you to maintain your living standard. Like sure things aren't perfect, not everyone is compensated proportionally to their contributions, no perfect markets and you can certainly improve things, but "I hate this planet" vibe when the default is hunter gatherer I feel like is majorly lacking perspective.
    - fc417fc802 8mo ago
      Your logic here amounts to "some people have it bad therefore everyone needs to have it bad". There are many situations where the world would generally be better if a relevant group of people had the option to choose to go elsewhere. When you are part of such a group and don't have that choice it is perfectly reasonable to be frustrated by the state of things.
      - SoftTalker 8mo ago
        Frustration is a clue that you need to reframe the problem.
        fc417fc802 8mo ago
        Not so. Certainly in many contexts it is a clue that reframing the problem might be useful but you certainly don't need to. In many cases doing so might even be counterproductive. There are times when being frustrated or even angry at the situation you find yourself in is the right thing. I'm not saying that's necessarily the case here. Just observing that frustration doesn't necessarily imply that you're wrong. Of course the inverse is also true. Being frustrated doesn't mean others are necessarily in the wrong - it might well be your own damn fault.
        deleted 8mo ago
        [deleted]
      - rafaelmn 8mo ago
nitwit005 8mo ago
To me the issue isn't seeming inhuman, but cost. Employers often seem happy to impose rediculous time costs on the people they're hiring: take home tests, long series of interviews, etc. What held that back is they also paid a price. Full automation leaves them free to impose infinite cost with no guarantee of anything.
- bbkane 8mo ago
  Employers are also inundated by applications so they're applying higher bars to meet as a sort of back pressure. I hate it from the candidates' perspective, but it's not illogical from the employer perspective. No, I don't know how to fix it.
  - gedy 8mo ago
    In the end companies don't need to hook up to the sewer pipe that floods applications. What worked in past was (heaven forbid) technical hiring manager looking at resumes, etc and reaching out to clearly qualified candidates. Not hr 20-somethings with humanities degrees. Sorry
  - nitwit005 8mo ago
    Getting a lot of applications that don't meet your standard doesn't force you to raise you bar. You still just need someone who meets your standard. It's quite rare for companies to have evidence to support their hiring methods, which unfortunately means it's heavily driven by trends.
    - tmoertel 8mo ago
      > Getting a lot of applications that don't meet your standard doesn't force you to raise you[r] bar. You still just need someone who meets your standard. I'm not sure that first sentence true. Let me play Devil's advocate: What's the primary cause of not being able to find someone who meets your standard when you already get lots of applications? It's that your hiring process is bogged down by the masses of unwanted candidates you must evaluate to find the few wanted candidates in the crowd of applicants. And what's the fix? It's better screening. Which is raising your bar, isn't it? Even if it's only to add cargo-cult screens to your bar, it's making the bar more selective, isn't it? Fewer people clear it, right?
arctic-true 8mo ago
I had this experience when I was trying to find an apartment - multiple different buildings very clearly had AI-generated responses. (To all you builders out there: quick replies are great. Instant replies are suspicious.) I immediately stopped considering them as options. If you can’t be bothered to have a human respond to my email when I’m trying to give you my money, what level of service can I expect once I’m already obligated to pay rent?
- blitzar 8mo ago
  I get along well with the amazon returns / late delivery bot - I think I prefer it to the humans.
- deleted 8mo ago
  [deleted]
- skeuomorphism 8mo ago
  This is more or less the go-to standard in the usa. One property manager handles possibly hundreds in an association, or dozens of townhomes, and will refuse to speak to you directly, except through a maintenance request system. Its incredibly depressing
  - Octoth0rpe 8mo ago
    But at least they're passing on all the savings to the renters, right? ....Right???????
  - AnotherGoodName 8mo ago
    The electrical panel beeps an alarm constantly. Sent an email to the property management company. Guy comes over and presses a button to silence it for 24 hours. Rinse repeat for months on end. No method of escalation beyond the automatic replying inbox. I’m fine. twitch twitch Welcome to 21st century distopia!
    - Eisenstein 8mo ago
      Whatever that panel is responsible for, that thing isn't working properly, its just set to be silent temporarily. Find out what regulatory body in your town deals with that panel's responsibility, contact them telling them that of the issue and say that you have contacted them when you submit your next ticket.
beloch 8mo ago
Many don't judge a company by their inhuman resources department, but probably should.
piyuv 8mo ago
I’ve read many horror stories from Indian developers about how they’re treated. They can’t escape it since almost every company in India will treat them the same. Their only escape is a remote job or to relocate. I believe we’ll see this play out in a global scale. Once every employer paying a good salary does this, we won’t be able to pick and choose, without forfeiting a huge chunk of income. At that point I’d rather become a baker.
- eikenberry 8mo ago
  Small companies are an obvious 3rd place to escape to and there should be a good number of them given all the big companies behave as you indicate.. unless it really hard to start a new business in India. Do you know if this is the case or why else wouldn't you consider small businesses as a alternative?
  - dice 8mo ago
    I'm hiring at a small company and it's a nightmare. 1,000+ applicants for a software engineering position and we have essentially no help from recruiting. I'm filtering based on keywords, giving each resume a max of 90 seconds, and anything that even slightly seems off gets rejected. I only have the bandwidth to talk to a couple 10s of candidates since I have the entire rest of my job to do, so I can see the appeal of an AI interviewer. I'd never use one due to the issues brought up here though.
    - davnicwil 8mo ago
      just thinking about this, if you had the latitude to explain it more or less exactly as you have here, in human language, and frame it as a screen stage of the application and not an interview, and add: 'hey, I know this is really far from ideal but if you're legitimately interested this probably works in your favour', good people might not mind it. I think most of the issue with this kind of thing, practical stuff aside like extra time invested and potential unpleasantness of actual experience, is what it implies about the culture and your relationship. If you level with people a lot of that gets addressed, and you're left with 'only' the practical inconvenience.
ncr100 8mo ago
Need to say versions of this more often, "That is not how it works here." A very powerful and clarifying comment made by a European reporter, to a US Envoy of the Trump administration, during the first Presidency. (January 2018 press conference involving Pete Hoekstra) It was in response to the Envoy bullshit and lie about how he didn't say some anti-Islam thing (claiming that the Islamic movement had brought "chaos" to the Netherlands and that there were "no-go zones" where politicians were being burned). Then one reporter -- Roel Geeraedts, stated: "This is the Netherlands. You have to answer questions." And finally another reporter followed up with the top quote.
- hunterpayne 8mo ago
  "That is not how it works here." Right, how it works in Europe is there are just no jobs or economic growth at all. Works great for those late in their career who have jobs and basically can't be fired. Not so much for anyone younger though. Better hope your employer doesn't go out of business before you retire. Better hope your government doesn't go bankrupt before you die. Stop injecting politics into a non-political discussion that had nothing to do with Trump or politics at all. Especially since Europe's situation doesn't exactly shine by comparison.
  - ejpir 8mo ago
    https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-explained/index.php?title=Employment_-_annual_statistics https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-explained/index.php... pretty much contradicts anything you said.
    - ncr100 8mo ago
      Hah - excellent citation, thank you ejpir for affirming and reinforcing the fact-based truth.
  - deleted 8mo ago
    [deleted]
- deleted 8mo ago
  [deleted]
torben-friis 8mo ago
There is a limited ability to reject work, which is based on the fact that we all need a salary to live (the usual definition of class). Offer and demand have left most engineers at a level of comfort where we can usually ignore that reality (until we age, become disabled, or go through similar stuff), but we shouldn’t rely only on that to protect people from mistreatment. This should not be legal.
einpoklum 8mo ago
Poorly, which is how a huge fraction of employees are treated by their employers. This is particularly true in the US, where unionization rates are very low, the dominant culture is massively biased in favor of owners/employers, and labor laws are few and grant little. That is to say, that as bad as this experience is, it is unfortunately not something so far from what many potential employees have to look forward to. Remember that people interviewing to work as unskilled laborers in a Domino's pizza store (to give an example from the video) may not have such a wide array of choices and likely really need to get some job to make ends meet.
tracerbulletx 8mo ago
Listen it does suck, but I dont think this is really true. A lot of the best places to work treat candidates like subhumans before they are welcomed into the fold and then suddenly you're making 300k+ doing interesting work with incredible people and treated great, (until they're done with you at some point)
toomanyrichies 8mo ago
Indeed- if they'll hire you via AI, they're likely to fire you via AI, when the time inevitably comes.
- RobRivera 8mo ago
  At that point just send an email with attachments for regular outprocessing information
wordpad 8mo ago
I have a junior position open and got 1,300 applicants in 1 week before we took it down. Many of the candidates with strong resumes are just lying and doing so well enough to pass HR screens. I doubt any sort of AI screen would help though as many of the lying candidates are already using AI assist tools making it just a cat and mouse race... I don't know a good solution to give everyone a fair chance.
- eloisant 8mo ago
  You can't give everyone a fair chance, but at least don't waste their time with a stupid AI interview. Also, at the end of the day, in your 1,300 applicants maybe you have 200 who are a perfect fit and as equally good. But you just have one position. So even with a perfect system that gives you complete information, you'll still have to reject 199 strong candidates.
esafak 8mo ago
> when everyone is trying to put their best foot forward Except they're not. A significant fraction of applicants are people you would not want in your company. Outright frauds. You find out when you are on the hiring end and you can see the raw applications without any filters. The question is are you going to reject them based on whatever information you can glean without a call or interview, or are you going to give them a chance? A looser screen is more democratic, but it calls for scalable solutions like this. Perhaps a middle ground is to screen only the suspect candidates with AI.
Manuel_D 8mo ago
For a first-round interview, it was not uncommon to have a leet-code style automated assignment as early as the mid 2010s. I recall more than a few highly regarded employers that did this in 2014. Is an AI interview meaningfully different than one of these automated interview systems? A lot of people are assuming that there'd be a human interview absent this AI interview, but it could very easily just be another automated interview - just a less sophisticated one. A company using an AI interview where I'd normally see a Leet-code assignment (e.g a first round coding interview) would not strike me as a bad thing. Of course if they wanted to the the entire interview loops with AI I'd stay away.
- sarchertech 8mo ago
  1. Plenty of people have problems with any screening that requires work on the candidate side but nothing on the employer side. In that regard both of these options are equally bad. 2. Automated code screens usually have an objective right answer. With an AI interview you have no idea what the how you did or how your answers could trigger an LLM to reject you. And there’s the fact that you have to talk to it like it’s a human which many maybe most people find at least a bit dehumanizing.
- john_strinlai 8mo ago
  >Is an AI interview meaningfully different than one of these automated interview systems? i think it is important to remember that ai interviews arent constrained to the tech industry. many people who have no idea what a 'leet-code' is, and who have always done normal human-human interviews, are now having to navigate being interviewed by ai as well.
- drcxd 8mo ago
  A leet-code style automated assignment is like a test. We all did tests in school so I guess most people do not feel there is anything wrong about that. However, an interview, which should be conducted by human, but instead by something AI pretends to be human, would make most of the current human beings feel disgusted, naturally. Is there any formal proof that an AI conducted interview yields more than a pencil & paper test? Or is there any scientific research about that? I doubt there would be any in the near future. Then using such AI conducted interviews is simply a belief.
jvickers 8mo ago
Philosophically I really like the idea in terms of how I'd like to work. If they are paying for a data processing node then they can have that. It won't stop me from being a human, and it could give me more time to get on with my life.
dgudkov 8mo ago
Dehumanizing customers by making them talk to (or chat with) AI bots is OK and kinda cool. Dehumanizing [potential] employees by making them talk to (or chat with) AI bots is NOT OK and kinda sucks. Am I getting it right?
- tdeck 8mo ago
  You've chosen to miss the power relationship completely.
  - deleted 8mo ago
    [deleted]
  - deleted 8mo ago
    [deleted]
  - dgudkov 8mo ago
    I don't see how customers are less important than developers.
BurningFrog 8mo ago
I once worked at a company that received 1500 SWE applications per day. There simply wasn't enough people around to give everyone the personal treatment they may think they deserved. Taking this as a personal insult is not a great sign that I'd want to work with you...
- ludicrousdispla 8mo ago
  It's surprising to me when companies become less competent when given more data.
b8 8mo ago
IBM and the government often asks for recorded answers to questions for interviews now
rk06 8mo ago
I think this is a bit unreasonable. there are a lot of people applying to every job post. if a company can use AI to better filter the candidates, then it is an improvement. there is issue only if AI is encoded with human bias, but treated as neutral and impartial judge
- Charon77 8mo ago
  Interview is a two-way communication. Just as companies evaluating the candidates, the candidates are also evaluating the company. How would the company feels if the people applying uses AI avatar to answer the interview questions too?
  - rk06 8mo ago
    I am assuming that all interviews are not AI, and it is only initial filter. if not, then i will filter the company out!!
- bigstrat2003 8mo ago
  No, it isn't remotely unreasonable. It is completely disrespectful of a candidate to make them "interview" with a bot. I'm not going to work for a company which disrespects me in that way right up front.
  - rk06 8mo ago
    "disrespect" is doing quite a heavy lifting here. if the company is honest and upfront about it, why do you consider it any different from automated coding test or the implicit Resume scanner? Ultimately, a company has to filter job applications and find the right fit. and I consider a number of things companies actually do to be very disrespectful and demeaning. for eg: getting interviewed by clueless HR who have zero techinical expertise, not sharing salary range in advance, asking leetcode hard questions, forcing AI bullshit etc With that framing, i consider AI interview to be less disrespectful and something i am ok with.
- autoexec 8mo ago
  Would you be okay with applicants using AI for these interviews? If I have thousands of applications out and I can use AI to better filter the companies I want to work for then it's an improvement.
TuringNYC 8mo ago
>> For me, this is the key point. If a company can't even be bothered to show up for my interview -- when everyone is trying to put their best foot forward -- that bodes very ill for how I'll be treated if I were to work there. Was this an initial screener or the final deciding interview? Also curious if you felt the async nature of an AI screener (if it was a screener) might be beneficial to some w/r/t timing (e.g., if I have a job, I wouldnt have time to interview during the day, so i'd prefer an async screener I can do at night or over the weekend.)
rendaw 8mo ago
I hate that it's the case, but generally the ones doing the dumb stuff during the hiring process are HR, and you'll not be interacting with them for 99% of the job once hired. Even before LLMs they were using AI and dumber applicant screening, causing people to fill their resumes with keywords.
- eloisant 8mo ago
  HR have always had dumb ways to filter resumes, which can unfairly reject good candidates but might not be an issue for the company as long as they find enough good candidates. Also, at least they don't waste candidates' time. With AI interviews, not only they're wasting all the candidates times, but they're starting the relationship on the wrong foot for the candidates they'll end up hiring!
weatherlite 8mo ago
Is it dehumanizing though? People can dehumanize you as well. I'm going through technical interviews now. While most people interviewing me are decent enough, even the nicer ones can look at their phones, get distracted/impatient or even start hazing you. Let alone how unnatural and stressful it is to start solving algorithms in front of two people. Also - the amount of constructive feedback I got from the interviews is zero, perhaps an A.I can do a better job at it. No one really teaches people how to interview candidates and many see it as a drain on their time and do it reluctantly. In big companies the person giving you the 1st technical interview many times isnt even on the team you're interviewing for, sometimes he's not even in the same country. So it's not like you get to meet the team on such an interview, you simply go through a mostly awkward hour to hour and half solving some Leetcode question while the guy stares silently at your shared screen or worse stares at his own tabs. I think the whole Leetcode thing can definitely be outsourced to A.I and I have no problem with it at all, in fact it might be more comfortable for candidates bombing in front of an A.I than in front of a person. The more behavioral interviews (usually 2nd step onwards) are the interviews where there is real value in meeting the actual team (which Leetcode step is usually not part of) - has to stay human.
- thomasfromcdnjs 8mo ago
  I was looking for a comment like this. I have done interviews with companies that I generally thought were wholesome enough, but you can't control how individuals feel on certain days, they could be going through some dark days at home etc. I'm not sold on AI interviews, but it could actually end up letting you fully share your experience more than a human could on average.
ph4rsikal 8mo ago
"dehumanizing"? What is human about a career website where you can upload your document and answer questions about your sex life, race, religion, and gender?
xdertz 8mo ago
[dead]
bambax 8mo ago
True. This is indeed next-level shit. Although human HR are often not much better. There are many downsides to being an independent consultant/contractor but the main benefit is this: you never have to deal with anyone from HR, ever; you don't do "job interviews", no one asks you fake questions like "tell me about yourself" or "where would you like to be in your career five years from now", etc. The discussion almost always goes like this: "here's my problem, can you solve it and how much will it cost". You answer with "yes" and a quote and off you go. Source: I've been an independent consultant for 20+ years. Never once did I meet or even received one communication from anyone from HR at any of my clients, before, during or after a job.
tveita 8mo ago
I absolutely agree in principle, but I understand that the companies are also seeing a lot more applicants trying to skate past screening and interviews with AI assistance. Connecting verified humans for a mutually respectful chat is a trust problem that companies like LinkedIn should be creating solutions for, instead of offering both sides automated shovels to shovel slop faster.
stainablesteel 8mo ago
it's a filtering step, they want people who are willing to work like slaves and it's fairly dystopian
- rkomorn 8mo ago
  I don't have any positive feelings about AI interviewers, but I don't believe your take is correct. I agree that it does filter as you describe, but it's just a side effect. I think the actual reason is simply that they're lazy and don't care.
  - eloisant 8mo ago
    Add to that the AI fad where somehow they find it cool to have AI do something they (or their employees) used to do.
    - rkomorn 8mo ago
      Yeah, exactly. "We're leveraging AI! Efficiency gains!!" and who cares about the actual humans on the other end.
DrScientist 8mo ago
It's not necessarily a reflection on the team you are going to be in. Large companies have the problem that they get 100's if not 1000's of applicants for a role, and so HR screen them before they even get to the hiring manager. And whether HR screen via keyword search, AI CV reading, online tests, phone screens or AI interviews - it's always massively imperfect - as the HR recruiter doesn't have the expertise of the hiring manager.
- Cthulhu_ 8mo ago
  That's assuming they open up a role for public applications, I think (assume, believe, etc) that these companies will have internal recruiters reaching out first before opening it to the public.
  - DrScientist 8mo ago
    That works better but is expensive - quite often you have to show the public route has failed before you can justify active recruitment. Also large companies intrinsically know that in the end active recruitment is a bit of a zero sum game - you poach your competitors staff they poach yours - so there is a hesitancy in getting involved in that game. I have seen people who are actively recruited ( hey we think your great please apply ), who are then forced to do these kind of HR screenings ( because that's the process ). This clearly doesn't make any sense and sends entirely the wrong signal.
yodsanklai 8mo ago
My manager is slowly being replaced by an AI. She's been asked to increase number of reports and start working on unrelated tasks, because presumably AI is making more productive at supporting the team.
nsxwolf 8mo ago
I'd like to think I'd still treat you well, even though the interview process was decided by someone else and is completely out of my hands.
cnd78A 8mo ago
"dehumanizing": you should beblong to the lucky one surrounded by nice humans, many people prefer AI over (the vast majority of) humans.

by JohnFen 8mo ago

CoastalCoder 8mo ago

I agree in principle. However, having been unemployed for over a year with a family to feed, I learned a little about what I'd put up with to get a job.

plagiarist 8mo ago
Yeah this. I hate this planet. So many problems would go away if people could actually afford to make choices.
- 9rx 8mo ago
  Resource allocation is entirely a social construct. Not being afford something is a 'pretend' state that only exists because everyone agrees to go along with it. Even if a magical unicorn were to step in and start distributing resources perfectly, solving that particular problem, if humans can't even get something as simple as resource allocation right, why are you so sure they won't also screw up everything else to ensure that all other problems remain?
  - roenxi 8mo ago
    > Resource allocation is entirely a social construct. Not being afford something is a 'pretend' state that only exists because everyone agrees to go along with it. That can't exactly be true, because scarcity is a physical limit. If there is exactly 1 apple, it is impossible for 2 people to eat it. That is no social construct. There is a large social element involved, but that in itself is done in such a way as to try and encourage creation of a large amount of stuff to a large number of people. It isn't arbitrary; there are a lot of allocation schemes that lead to mass starvation and poverty. The natural human instincts are beyond terrible at allocating resources; pretty much everyone at this point has discovered that laws and capitalism with some welfare trimmings on the edge is a much better approach than any alternative that got tried.
    - hackable_sand 8mo ago
      That's really funny
    - altruios 8mo ago
      I hear and understand your point. It is not purely a social construct. But how much available farmland to allocate to grow food from the available farmland becomes a political issue. Pricing, distribution... same deal. And considering our (humanity's) food production outmatches our total food calorie/nutrition requirements... any argument using food as an example for scarcity indicates that you may be working with incorrect, or outdated information. And Is "money" a social construct, or is there 'natural' money, some platonic ideal from which all other instantiations of money arise? I'm betting on the former.
      - 9rx 8mo ago
        > It is not purely a social construct. What else is involved? Despite the inane ramblings of the parent comment, scarcity isn't actually a factor. Allocation occurs because of scarcity. Without scarcity, there is no such thing as allocation. It is the reason for why resource allocation exists entirely a social construct.
        altruios 8mo ago
        While food is not scarce in total, logistics are (at some limit) physics bound. Other resources are currently in higher demand than their current supply: silver for example. So there is nuance.
        9rx 8mo ago
        > Other resources are currently in higher demand than their current supply: silver for example. That, of course, is why we created resource allocation as a social construct. Obviously you fundamentally cannot have allocation without scarcity. But it doesn't answer the question. If resource allocation is not entirely a social construct, are you imagining that resources are also allocated by some kind of natural force? Given the scarcity of silver, maybe the universe decides that you get some and I don't? And if you try to give me yours, contrary to the fabric of the universe, you will be struck down by a bolt of lightning before you can give it to me? What is the "what else" here? This nuance you vaguely refer to but don't say anything about is certainly intriguing. I am looking forward to you completing that chain of thought.
- dmitrygr 8mo ago
  > So many problems would go away if Writing it like you did implies that a magical solution exists and we are all maliciously withholding it from you. It does not and we are not.
  - john_strinlai 8mo ago
    >implies that a magical solution exists and we are all maliciously withholding it from you i did not get that from what they wrote at all. they sound frustrated. but that does not mean they are frustrated at you specifically.
  - brailsafe 8mo ago
    I disagree with the notion that that's what their word choice implies. Also, there doesn't need be magical solution that's not being implemented for there to clearly be a severely heightened level of precarity in the economy that has a hugely negative impact on people who haven't had time to build a financial safety net, build their careers, or buy a house when it was feasible, in large part due specifically to aggressive, malicious, sometimes coordinated extractions of rent and land value
  - dspillett 8mo ago
    Writing that like that makes you sound like one of those “I didn't get help when I was younger so why should anyone else get help now?” types who highlight their own entitlement and luck by trying to frame others as entitled. You might not be, but it sounds that way to me. And if you think this knee-jerk reaction is unfair, let that be a lesson to you! :)
- Steve16384 8mo ago
  We need Universal Income.
- rafaelmn 8mo ago
  The only reason you can "afford" anything is because other people do shit they would rather not, but do so for the money. If people could actually "afford to make choices" you'd find out pretty soon how dependent you are on others doing the dirty work for you to maintain your living standard. Like sure things aren't perfect, not everyone is compensated proportionally to their contributions, no perfect markets and you can certainly improve things, but "I hate this planet" vibe when the default is hunter gatherer I feel like is majorly lacking perspective.
  - fc417fc802 8mo ago
    Your logic here amounts to "some people have it bad therefore everyone needs to have it bad". There are many situations where the world would generally be better if a relevant group of people had the option to choose to go elsewhere. When you are part of such a group and don't have that choice it is perfectly reasonable to be frustrated by the state of things.
    - SoftTalker 8mo ago
      Frustration is a clue that you need to reframe the problem.
      - fc417fc802 8mo ago
        Not so. Certainly in many contexts it is a clue that reframing the problem might be useful but you certainly don't need to. In many cases doing so might even be counterproductive. There are times when being frustrated or even angry at the situation you find yourself in is the right thing. I'm not saying that's necessarily the case here. Just observing that frustration doesn't necessarily imply that you're wrong. Of course the inverse is also true. Being frustrated doesn't mean others are necessarily in the wrong - it might well be your own damn fault.
      - deleted 8mo ago
        [deleted]
    - rafaelmn 8mo ago

nitwit005 8mo ago

To me the issue isn't seeming inhuman, but cost. Employers often seem happy to impose rediculous time costs on the people they're hiring: take home tests, long series of interviews, etc. What held that back is they also paid a price. Full automation leaves them free to impose infinite cost with no guarantee of anything.

bbkane 8mo ago
Employers are also inundated by applications so they're applying higher bars to meet as a sort of back pressure. I hate it from the candidates' perspective, but it's not illogical from the employer perspective. No, I don't know how to fix it.
- gedy 8mo ago
  In the end companies don't need to hook up to the sewer pipe that floods applications. What worked in past was (heaven forbid) technical hiring manager looking at resumes, etc and reaching out to clearly qualified candidates. Not hr 20-somethings with humanities degrees. Sorry
- nitwit005 8mo ago
  Getting a lot of applications that don't meet your standard doesn't force you to raise you bar. You still just need someone who meets your standard. It's quite rare for companies to have evidence to support their hiring methods, which unfortunately means it's heavily driven by trends.
  - tmoertel 8mo ago
    > Getting a lot of applications that don't meet your standard doesn't force you to raise you[r] bar. You still just need someone who meets your standard. I'm not sure that first sentence true. Let me play Devil's advocate: What's the primary cause of not being able to find someone who meets your standard when you already get lots of applications? It's that your hiring process is bogged down by the masses of unwanted candidates you must evaluate to find the few wanted candidates in the crowd of applicants. And what's the fix? It's better screening. Which is raising your bar, isn't it? Even if it's only to add cargo-cult screens to your bar, it's making the bar more selective, isn't it? Fewer people clear it, right?

arctic-true 8mo ago

I had this experience when I was trying to find an apartment - multiple different buildings very clearly had AI-generated responses. (To all you builders out there: quick replies are great. Instant replies are suspicious.) I immediately stopped considering them as options. If you can’t be bothered to have a human respond to my email when I’m trying to give you my money, what level of service can I expect once I’m already obligated to pay rent?

blitzar 8mo ago
I get along well with the amazon returns / late delivery bot - I think I prefer it to the humans.
deleted 8mo ago
[deleted]
skeuomorphism 8mo ago
This is more or less the go-to standard in the usa. One property manager handles possibly hundreds in an association, or dozens of townhomes, and will refuse to speak to you directly, except through a maintenance request system. Its incredibly depressing
- Octoth0rpe 8mo ago
  But at least they're passing on all the savings to the renters, right? ....Right???????
- AnotherGoodName 8mo ago
  The electrical panel beeps an alarm constantly. Sent an email to the property management company. Guy comes over and presses a button to silence it for 24 hours. Rinse repeat for months on end. No method of escalation beyond the automatic replying inbox. I’m fine. twitch twitch Welcome to 21st century distopia!
  - Eisenstein 8mo ago
    Whatever that panel is responsible for, that thing isn't working properly, its just set to be silent temporarily. Find out what regulatory body in your town deals with that panel's responsibility, contact them telling them that of the issue and say that you have contacted them when you submit your next ticket.

beloch 8mo ago

Many don't judge a company by their inhuman resources department, but probably should.

piyuv 8mo ago

I’ve read many horror stories from Indian developers about how they’re treated. They can’t escape it since almost every company in India will treat them the same. Their only escape is a remote job or to relocate. I believe we’ll see this play out in a global scale. Once every employer paying a good salary does this, we won’t be able to pick and choose, without forfeiting a huge chunk of income. At that point I’d rather become a baker.

eikenberry 8mo ago
Small companies are an obvious 3rd place to escape to and there should be a good number of them given all the big companies behave as you indicate.. unless it really hard to start a new business in India. Do you know if this is the case or why else wouldn't you consider small businesses as a alternative?
- dice 8mo ago
  I'm hiring at a small company and it's a nightmare. 1,000+ applicants for a software engineering position and we have essentially no help from recruiting. I'm filtering based on keywords, giving each resume a max of 90 seconds, and anything that even slightly seems off gets rejected. I only have the bandwidth to talk to a couple 10s of candidates since I have the entire rest of my job to do, so I can see the appeal of an AI interviewer. I'd never use one due to the issues brought up here though.
  - davnicwil 8mo ago
    just thinking about this, if you had the latitude to explain it more or less exactly as you have here, in human language, and frame it as a screen stage of the application and not an interview, and add: 'hey, I know this is really far from ideal but if you're legitimately interested this probably works in your favour', good people might not mind it. I think most of the issue with this kind of thing, practical stuff aside like extra time invested and potential unpleasantness of actual experience, is what it implies about the culture and your relationship. If you level with people a lot of that gets addressed, and you're left with 'only' the practical inconvenience.

ncr100 8mo ago

Need to say versions of this more often, "That is not how it works here." A very powerful and clarifying comment made by a European reporter, to a US Envoy of the Trump administration, during the first Presidency. (January 2018 press conference involving Pete Hoekstra) It was in response to the Envoy bullshit and lie about how he didn't say some anti-Islam thing (claiming that the Islamic movement had brought "chaos" to the Netherlands and that there were "no-go zones" where politicians were being burned). Then one reporter -- Roel Geeraedts, stated: "This is the Netherlands. You have to answer questions." And finally another reporter followed up with the top quote.

hunterpayne 8mo ago
"That is not how it works here." Right, how it works in Europe is there are just no jobs or economic growth at all. Works great for those late in their career who have jobs and basically can't be fired. Not so much for anyone younger though. Better hope your employer doesn't go out of business before you retire. Better hope your government doesn't go bankrupt before you die. Stop injecting politics into a non-political discussion that had nothing to do with Trump or politics at all. Especially since Europe's situation doesn't exactly shine by comparison.
- ejpir 8mo ago
  https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-explained/index.php?title=Employment_-_annual_statistics https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-explained/index.php... pretty much contradicts anything you said.
  - ncr100 8mo ago
    Hah - excellent citation, thank you ejpir for affirming and reinforcing the fact-based truth.
- deleted 8mo ago
  [deleted]
deleted 8mo ago
[deleted]

torben-friis 8mo ago

There is a limited ability to reject work, which is based on the fact that we all need a salary to live (the usual definition of class). Offer and demand have left most engineers at a level of comfort where we can usually ignore that reality (until we age, become disabled, or go through similar stuff), but we shouldn’t rely only on that to protect people from mistreatment. This should not be legal.

einpoklum 8mo ago

Poorly, which is how a huge fraction of employees are treated by their employers. This is particularly true in the US, where unionization rates are very low, the dominant culture is massively biased in favor of owners/employers, and labor laws are few and grant little. That is to say, that as bad as this experience is, it is unfortunately not something so far from what many potential employees have to look forward to. Remember that people interviewing to work as unskilled laborers in a Domino's pizza store (to give an example from the video) may not have such a wide array of choices and likely really need to get some job to make ends meet.

tracerbulletx 8mo ago

Listen it does suck, but I dont think this is really true. A lot of the best places to work treat candidates like subhumans before they are welcomed into the fold and then suddenly you're making 300k+ doing interesting work with incredible people and treated great, (until they're done with you at some point)

toomanyrichies 8mo ago

Indeed- if they'll hire you via AI, they're likely to fire you via AI, when the time inevitably comes.

RobRivera 8mo ago
At that point just send an email with attachments for regular outprocessing information

wordpad 8mo ago

I have a junior position open and got 1,300 applicants in 1 week before we took it down. Many of the candidates with strong resumes are just lying and doing so well enough to pass HR screens. I doubt any sort of AI screen would help though as many of the lying candidates are already using AI assist tools making it just a cat and mouse race... I don't know a good solution to give everyone a fair chance.

eloisant 8mo ago
You can't give everyone a fair chance, but at least don't waste their time with a stupid AI interview. Also, at the end of the day, in your 1,300 applicants maybe you have 200 who are a perfect fit and as equally good. But you just have one position. So even with a perfect system that gives you complete information, you'll still have to reject 199 strong candidates.

esafak 8mo ago

> when everyone is trying to put their best foot forward Except they're not. A significant fraction of applicants are people you would not want in your company. Outright frauds. You find out when you are on the hiring end and you can see the raw applications without any filters. The question is are you going to reject them based on whatever information you can glean without a call or interview, or are you going to give them a chance? A looser screen is more democratic, but it calls for scalable solutions like this. Perhaps a middle ground is to screen only the suspect candidates with AI.

Manuel_D 8mo ago

For a first-round interview, it was not uncommon to have a leet-code style automated assignment as early as the mid 2010s. I recall more than a few highly regarded employers that did this in 2014. Is an AI interview meaningfully different than one of these automated interview systems? A lot of people are assuming that there'd be a human interview absent this AI interview, but it could very easily just be another automated interview - just a less sophisticated one. A company using an AI interview where I'd normally see a Leet-code assignment (e.g a first round coding interview) would not strike me as a bad thing. Of course if they wanted to the the entire interview loops with AI I'd stay away.

sarchertech 8mo ago
1. Plenty of people have problems with any screening that requires work on the candidate side but nothing on the employer side. In that regard both of these options are equally bad. 2. Automated code screens usually have an objective right answer. With an AI interview you have no idea what the how you did or how your answers could trigger an LLM to reject you. And there’s the fact that you have to talk to it like it’s a human which many maybe most people find at least a bit dehumanizing.
john_strinlai 8mo ago
>Is an AI interview meaningfully different than one of these automated interview systems? i think it is important to remember that ai interviews arent constrained to the tech industry. many people who have no idea what a 'leet-code' is, and who have always done normal human-human interviews, are now having to navigate being interviewed by ai as well.
drcxd 8mo ago
A leet-code style automated assignment is like a test. We all did tests in school so I guess most people do not feel there is anything wrong about that. However, an interview, which should be conducted by human, but instead by something AI pretends to be human, would make most of the current human beings feel disgusted, naturally. Is there any formal proof that an AI conducted interview yields more than a pencil & paper test? Or is there any scientific research about that? I doubt there would be any in the near future. Then using such AI conducted interviews is simply a belief.

jvickers 8mo ago

Philosophically I really like the idea in terms of how I'd like to work. If they are paying for a data processing node then they can have that. It won't stop me from being a human, and it could give me more time to get on with my life.

dgudkov 8mo ago

Dehumanizing customers by making them talk to (or chat with) AI bots is OK and kinda cool. Dehumanizing [potential] employees by making them talk to (or chat with) AI bots is NOT OK and kinda sucks. Am I getting it right?

tdeck 8mo ago
You've chosen to miss the power relationship completely.
- deleted 8mo ago
  [deleted]
- deleted 8mo ago
  [deleted]
- dgudkov 8mo ago
  I don't see how customers are less important than developers.

BurningFrog 8mo ago

I once worked at a company that received 1500 SWE applications per day. There simply wasn't enough people around to give everyone the personal treatment they may think they deserved. Taking this as a personal insult is not a great sign that I'd want to work with you...

ludicrousdispla 8mo ago
It's surprising to me when companies become less competent when given more data.

b8 8mo ago

IBM and the government often asks for recorded answers to questions for interviews now

rk06 8mo ago

I think this is a bit unreasonable. there are a lot of people applying to every job post. if a company can use AI to better filter the candidates, then it is an improvement. there is issue only if AI is encoded with human bias, but treated as neutral and impartial judge

Charon77 8mo ago
Interview is a two-way communication. Just as companies evaluating the candidates, the candidates are also evaluating the company. How would the company feels if the people applying uses AI avatar to answer the interview questions too?
- rk06 8mo ago
  I am assuming that all interviews are not AI, and it is only initial filter. if not, then i will filter the company out!!
bigstrat2003 8mo ago
No, it isn't remotely unreasonable. It is completely disrespectful of a candidate to make them "interview" with a bot. I'm not going to work for a company which disrespects me in that way right up front.
- rk06 8mo ago
  "disrespect" is doing quite a heavy lifting here. if the company is honest and upfront about it, why do you consider it any different from automated coding test or the implicit Resume scanner? Ultimately, a company has to filter job applications and find the right fit. and I consider a number of things companies actually do to be very disrespectful and demeaning. for eg: getting interviewed by clueless HR who have zero techinical expertise, not sharing salary range in advance, asking leetcode hard questions, forcing AI bullshit etc With that framing, i consider AI interview to be less disrespectful and something i am ok with.
autoexec 8mo ago
Would you be okay with applicants using AI for these interviews? If I have thousands of applications out and I can use AI to better filter the companies I want to work for then it's an improvement.

TuringNYC 8mo ago

>> For me, this is the key point. If a company can't even be bothered to show up for my interview -- when everyone is trying to put their best foot forward -- that bodes very ill for how I'll be treated if I were to work there. Was this an initial screener or the final deciding interview? Also curious if you felt the async nature of an AI screener (if it was a screener) might be beneficial to some w/r/t timing (e.g., if I have a job, I wouldnt have time to interview during the day, so i'd prefer an async screener I can do at night or over the weekend.)

rendaw 8mo ago

I hate that it's the case, but generally the ones doing the dumb stuff during the hiring process are HR, and you'll not be interacting with them for 99% of the job once hired. Even before LLMs they were using AI and dumber applicant screening, causing people to fill their resumes with keywords.

eloisant 8mo ago
HR have always had dumb ways to filter resumes, which can unfairly reject good candidates but might not be an issue for the company as long as they find enough good candidates. Also, at least they don't waste candidates' time. With AI interviews, not only they're wasting all the candidates times, but they're starting the relationship on the wrong foot for the candidates they'll end up hiring!

weatherlite 8mo ago

Is it dehumanizing though? People can dehumanize you as well. I'm going through technical interviews now. While most people interviewing me are decent enough, even the nicer ones can look at their phones, get distracted/impatient or even start hazing you. Let alone how unnatural and stressful it is to start solving algorithms in front of two people. Also - the amount of constructive feedback I got from the interviews is zero, perhaps an A.I can do a better job at it. No one really teaches people how to interview candidates and many see it as a drain on their time and do it reluctantly. In big companies the person giving you the 1st technical interview many times isnt even on the team you're interviewing for, sometimes he's not even in the same country. So it's not like you get to meet the team on such an interview, you simply go through a mostly awkward hour to hour and half solving some Leetcode question while the guy stares silently at your shared screen or worse stares at his own tabs. I think the whole Leetcode thing can definitely be outsourced to A.I and I have no problem with it at all, in fact it might be more comfortable for candidates bombing in front of an A.I than in front of a person. The more behavioral interviews (usually 2nd step onwards) are the interviews where there is real value in meeting the actual team (which Leetcode step is usually not part of) - has to stay human.

thomasfromcdnjs 8mo ago
I was looking for a comment like this. I have done interviews with companies that I generally thought were wholesome enough, but you can't control how individuals feel on certain days, they could be going through some dark days at home etc. I'm not sold on AI interviews, but it could actually end up letting you fully share your experience more than a human could on average.

ph4rsikal 8mo ago

"dehumanizing"? What is human about a career website where you can upload your document and answer questions about your sex life, race, religion, and gender?

xdertz 8mo ago

[dead]

bambax 8mo ago

True. This is indeed next-level shit. Although human HR are often not much better. There are many downsides to being an independent consultant/contractor but the main benefit is this: you never have to deal with anyone from HR, ever; you don't do "job interviews", no one asks you fake questions like "tell me about yourself" or "where would you like to be in your career five years from now", etc. The discussion almost always goes like this: "here's my problem, can you solve it and how much will it cost". You answer with "yes" and a quote and off you go. Source: I've been an independent consultant for 20+ years. Never once did I meet or even received one communication from anyone from HR at any of my clients, before, during or after a job.

tveita 8mo ago

I absolutely agree in principle, but I understand that the companies are also seeing a lot more applicants trying to skate past screening and interviews with AI assistance. Connecting verified humans for a mutually respectful chat is a trust problem that companies like LinkedIn should be creating solutions for, instead of offering both sides automated shovels to shovel slop faster.

stainablesteel 8mo ago

it's a filtering step, they want people who are willing to work like slaves and it's fairly dystopian

rkomorn 8mo ago
I don't have any positive feelings about AI interviewers, but I don't believe your take is correct. I agree that it does filter as you describe, but it's just a side effect. I think the actual reason is simply that they're lazy and don't care.
- eloisant 8mo ago
  Add to that the AI fad where somehow they find it cool to have AI do something they (or their employees) used to do.
  - rkomorn 8mo ago
    Yeah, exactly. "We're leveraging AI! Efficiency gains!!" and who cares about the actual humans on the other end.

DrScientist 8mo ago

It's not necessarily a reflection on the team you are going to be in. Large companies have the problem that they get 100's if not 1000's of applicants for a role, and so HR screen them before they even get to the hiring manager. And whether HR screen via keyword search, AI CV reading, online tests, phone screens or AI interviews - it's always massively imperfect - as the HR recruiter doesn't have the expertise of the hiring manager.

Cthulhu_ 8mo ago
That's assuming they open up a role for public applications, I think (assume, believe, etc) that these companies will have internal recruiters reaching out first before opening it to the public.
- DrScientist 8mo ago
  That works better but is expensive - quite often you have to show the public route has failed before you can justify active recruitment. Also large companies intrinsically know that in the end active recruitment is a bit of a zero sum game - you poach your competitors staff they poach yours - so there is a hesitancy in getting involved in that game. I have seen people who are actively recruited ( hey we think your great please apply ), who are then forced to do these kind of HR screenings ( because that's the process ). This clearly doesn't make any sense and sends entirely the wrong signal.

yodsanklai 8mo ago

My manager is slowly being replaced by an AI. She's been asked to increase number of reports and start working on unrelated tasks, because presumably AI is making more productive at supporting the team.

nsxwolf 8mo ago

I'd like to think I'd still treat you well, even though the interview process was decided by someone else and is completely out of my hands.

cnd78A 8mo ago

"dehumanizing": you should beblong to the lucky one surrounded by nice humans, many people prefer AI over (the vast majority of) humans.