Companies need a way to pick any hire out of a large set of applicants. They don’t care if it’s a good hire. They don’t even care if the hire will burn down the building. This same thing could be accomplished with a small script that points to a random applicant and evaluates if that one lied on their resume. That’s it.

But if you call it “AI”, dumbfuck business majors will buy your magic beans.

So again we're back to " just handle it" you people don't seem to realize there are thousands of people around the world who spend their entire life coming up with different ways to "handle it" and you think your little five minute thought is just so profound that no one has ever considered it.

... I'm sorry if you've spent your entire life on this, but this is bizarrely hostile. Countless people have spent countless hours hiring candidates without AI. This isn't some genius-level solution to an unsolved problem, this is just an attempt to downsize HR departments.

The company doesn't suffer some material loss if they miss out on hiring a marginally better candidate, and it's not like these AI solutions have been around long enough to prove that they can even find the "best" candidates. Especially when they're certainly filtering out qualified professionals who don't want to justify themselves to a glorified chatbot.

How long before AI interviewer accepts AI employee?

applicants are first and foremost deciding if it works

not that I agree with OP but this is the same fallacy of "voting with your wallet", this kind of boycott simply doesn't work long term, applicants eventually find themselves out of options and increasingly desperate as time goes by

Thanks man, feel like the only one sometimes.

It's a structural challenge more than a fallacy, but I don't entirely disagree. This sort of thing works best when one of two things is true, there's some way for people to organize, or it's relatively small and there are real options.

The former clearly isn't true here, but I think the latter is. There's a lot of companies trying things with AI, and some are working better or worse. This particular use is relatively small, and I think the downside of doing it is also small in the short term. (This is a giant red flag, avoiding a red flag isn't a large cost)

And they hired people before phones and shoes and lots of other things. You all sound like the Amish. Just picking a random time period and saying "nope this is good enough". No it's the people I'm here suggesting they filter out qualified people by just randomly selecting people out of a pool to hire.

Before shoes? Amish? My goodness. I didn't realize I was a savage Luddite. I'm on the most pro-AI instance in the fediverse, I literally think it has incredible potential, and I personally use the technology.

It's not ready to evaluate humans on any level, it's dehumanizing to force humans to talk to it for money, and it's definitely going to filter out skilled professionals who don't want to do that. As opposed to RNG, which is just as likely to filter out good as bad, and so has a net neutral impact on your hiring pool.

I'm not saying "stick to the past" I'm saying "hey maybe take it easy over there, we don't need to rush into a cyberpunk dystopia. We can take our time."