AI Is Forcing the Return of the In-Person Job Interview (msn.com)
- Reference: 0178656978
- News link: https://slashdot.org/story/25/08/12/1913202/ai-is-forcing-the-return-of-the-in-person-job-interview
- Source link: https://www.msn.com/en-us/money/companies/ai-is-forcing-the-return-of-the-in-person-job-interview/ar-AA1KmWnr
A Gartner survey of 3,000 job seekers found 6% admitted to interview fraud including having someone else stand in for them, while the FBI has warned of thousands of North Korean nationals using false identities to secure remote positions at U.S. technology companies. Google CEO Sundar Pichai confirmed in June the company now requires at least one in-person round for certain roles to verify candidates possess genuine coding skills.
[1] https://www.msn.com/en-us/money/companies/ai-is-forcing-the-return-of-the-in-person-job-interview/ar-AA1KmWnr
Re: Discriminates against the best workers unfairl (Score:2)
Sounds good. But without a solution to the remote job scams done by organized crime, we're going to go ahead with in person interviews.
Re: Discriminates against the best workers unfair (Score:2)
I cannot stress this enough, a company that ends up hiring fake employees from Korea should go under. I have no idea how you can hire fake people and not figure it out very quickly.
I don't want "the best," I want "good enough" (Score:1)
> The best people will just say no and then these companies will never be able to hire them.
99%+ of the time, you don't need "the best people." You probably don't want them anyway because you can't afford to pay them what they are worth (but hey, if they are devoted to your company/cause/project and will work for average wages, I'll take them!).
I want "good enough." Sometimes this means "meets the minimum stated hiring criteria, or at least comes close." Sometimes this means the "middle of the pack" of qualfied candidates. Sometimes this means "top 10%" or even "top 1%" of the peer group. Ver
Can we have some goose/gander rules? (Score:2)
And have an actual HR person look at your resume and contact you to set-up the interview, rather than AI doing it for them?
Re: (Score:3)
Can we do away with HR being the first call and skip right to speaking with an engineer? They can do a much better job of determining if a candidate is bullshitting.
Re: (Score:2)
Speaking as the engineer who would have to go through all the resumes to find someone, no thanks. I have actual work to do. HR exists so that the people doing the engineering or whatever do not have to waste time talking to the hundreds of unqualified applicants. I have been there. We were hiring contractors as technicians through a temp company. Whenever we had position, they would just send all the resumes of people who had a background in the general field and we had to go through them in the hopes
Re: (Score:3)
This. Funny how it's "interview fraud" to use AI on an interview assignment, but it isn't hiring fraud to use AI (and glorified grep scripts) to eliminate candidates and perform early interview rounds, or to advertise jobs as remote when they're hybrid at best, or to post jobs with requirements for skills or credentials that are in no way needed to do the job. It conveniently also isn't any kind of "fraud" to post ghost jobs on the regular.
Fail to admit lies was always a problem (Score:4, Insightful)
When I was a kid, job interviews were reasonable.
HR started doing stupid crap, thinking they could get better recruits.
10 exp req. for entry level jobs - in fields that were 5 years old.
Asking people to have skills equivalent to Senior positions for Junior positions.
Not stating salaries estimates and asking people how much they would work for.
Salary below market rates.
Eventually they find someone willing to SAY they qualify and will work for that salary.
Wondering why they had massive turnover with horrendous, underqualified employees.
Never ever realized that they had instead selected for the most deceitful scum in the world, willing to say anything to get a job.
This has been going on for decades. A war between scumbag HRs with ridiculous demands and lying bastards.
I am surprised any honest people get jobs.
The way to get the best people is to put in higher pay than your competition with lower experience requirements than standard. Then find the guys that can LEARN to do the job, rather than already know how.
It's got nothing to do with better recruits (Score:2, Insightful)
They don't want to hire you. They want to hire an H1B. Somebody who will work longer hours for less pay and who is younger. Somebody who has had recent training paid for by somebody else in the exact technology or product they want to hire for. And somebody they can discard like an old tissue when they are done with them.
The social contract is breaking down. We are going to see a fuck ton of violence.
I think the problem is there's a bunch of dumb people over the age of 50 who think that's going to b
Re: It's got nothing to do with better recruits (Score:2)
"They don't want to hire you. They want to hire an H1B."
That's mostly just a racist trope. Outside of a few well-known big companies that do lots of H1B hires, most of the time HR is gunning for their friend or some other associate to get hired. It's rarely a Visa holder HR is fighting for.
Re: It's got nothing to do with better recruits (Score:2)
Do you even understand what you are saying? Please explain what a "racist trope" is and how does it makes any sense in your idiotic statement?
Re: (Score:2)
If you don't understand that "Furriners are coming to take your job away because they'll work for a crust of bread" is a racist trope, I'm not sure if I can explain it to you.
You're the only one mentioning race (Score:2)
I frankly do not care which country the people my jobs are being given to I don't want my jobs to be given away.
Now I would like very much to transition from a competitive society to a cooperative one so that I don't have to fight for the right to live via jobs. But that's not the world I live in and to be blunt practically nobody here wants to make that transition. We were taught when we were kids competition good and that's not something we are going to let go easily if at all.
So I am basically fi
Various ways to handle this (Score:1)
For a truly-remote job that isn't "high stakes," partnering with an exisitng identity-verification firm like Greenhouse is doing with Clear (see article), make sense. One step up from that would be requiring a remote interview to be done in a "vetted location" like a recognized test-taking center.
Once you get to "high stakes" situations - and each company gets to decide what "high stakes" means in this context - an in-person interview becomes a must.
Even if it's not "a must" from a "cheating" perspective,
Ask them to modify their code live (Score:3)
We provide a technical test in our interview process and we got all sorts of neat submissions but it always falls apart when we ask them to make changes live. I personally don't care much about somebody using an LLM if they can demonstrate that they are skilled enough without using one, and if they can demonstrate that they won't trust a result. In fact, at this point we ask about AI usage and have applicants ask it questions that we know will give wrong answers just to see if they can identify the problem and figure out how to resolve it.
Isn't that what they want? (Score:3)
So on the one hand, they want everyone to leverage AI as much as possible to boost productivity and efficiency in their daily jobs. Which means that any task that can be done better or faster by an AI should, nay, must be. So if they are asking interview questions that can be done by AI, they should immediately reject candidates who DON'T use AI for those tasks. What am I missing here?
A two way street (Score:2)
Not only will applicants have to show up live without an AI to help them, but interviews will have to be done by live people and not AIs as well .
And next week, we'll see a story about people hiring ringers to interview for them.
Again.
Leet code interviews (Score:2)
I think they should really stop with the whole quiz/leet code style interviews. Memorizing the longest common sub sequence solution does not make you a better programmer. The fact that they expect you to spend two to three weeks cramming for algorithm questions is a bad practice. While they hire non-engineers without anything similar at all
Good (Score:3, Insightful)
Frankly, face to face meeting reveals a lot about people. You shouldn't hire or get hired without meeting your future employee/boss face to face and having a conversation.