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.
Customer service is bots all the way down.
It's hard for government to function well when half of it is trying to sabotage itself. The fact it works as good as it does after 40 years of that is a tribute to public servants.
if you get a response from the "Bureaucrat Bot" you just got to fire up the "Annoy Customer Service Bot" as a counter-measure
Resetting an alarm is going to look 'real good' if at some point the place burns down and for sure the building is insured somewhere and for sure that information is something you could dig up. If there is no unit owner and no HOA then multiple tenants will need to band together and get something going, initially we weren't talking about tenants at all, you brought that up and since then you've been tilting at windmills because nothing satisfies your needs. Obviously I won't be able to come up with workable scenarios for each new restriction that you impose because you can keep that up forever.
I'm not in the 'oh, I will just give up because I can't be arsed to solve this safety issue' group, if it really is an issue - and I'm going on the assumption here that it is - then someone will care about that. The key is to locate the someone and then to state your case, and when one method doesn't work to come up with another one that gets you closer.
Learned helplessness is not a solution to anything.
Called the police department's non-emergency line. Got a bot that told me it's a civil problem and that there's nothing they can do.
Scouted out the fire department and chatted up the fire chief in person while he was walking back in after lunch. He was very concerned about all of this (finally, progress!) and called the management company while we stood there, but his call was answered by a bot that said someone would be out in less than 24 hours to silence the noise again.
[...]
(I'd say "refuse" but I recognise you're not in a strong bargaining position here and you have to choose your battles).
The management company bot responded to the court declaring that they're doing all they're required to do to correct the noise, and concluded with "the issue is not ripe for adjudication" -- whatever that means.
The court's bot agreed and binned the complaint "with prejudice" -- again, whatever that means, and sent me a fine for wasting their time.
Every day, the noise still happens.
And every day, the man from the management company still shows up to silence the noise.
I've come to know him fairly well.
It turns out that his name is William, although everyone calls him Bill. Bill is a nice guy who once studied computer programming, but the best-paying job he ever managed to get was slinging packages for Amazon back when that was still a thing that people did.
Most Thursday nights, if we don't have anything else going on, Bill and I go bowling at the AMF that's not too far down the road. It was his idea. We've been doing this about every week for long enough that I've learned to become a pretty proficient bowler. And while I still enjoy that part, we spend most of our time having a few beers and solving the world's problems.
A few months ago, we started talking about pinsetters and Bill mentioned that he read once that this was once a job that people did manually -- that rather than having a machine at the end of the alley, there were people behind the wall who would collect the scattered pins and put them back onto the painted dots on the floor. That sounded pretty archaic compared to the machines that I've seen doing this work for my entire life, but it seemed likely enough.
I started thinking about some other things about bowling: These days, we just walk in and our shoes are ready for us by the time we make it up to the front. We pick our own lane and just start bowling. After that, the machine sets the pins, keeps the score, and returns the ball. Pretty normal stuff.
And then, Bill pointed out the other people: There were a couple of small groups of people who were bowling, and one grizzled old fellah nursing what looked like a White Russian at the bar, but that was it. Nobody else was present; nobody actually worked there at all.
How long had it been since I asked for a pair of size 11 shoes, I wondered? When was the last time I talked to a bartender to order another beer? I hadn't paid for a thing using a card, or even carried anything like that with me for what seemed like eons. The self-cleaning bathrooms were certainly a welcome change, but how long ago were those put in and what happened to the person who used to clean them?
Neither of us could pick an exact timeframe for when these things changed. We both agreed that it wasn't important at the time, and that it seemed like a natural-enough progression.
Anyway, it was getting late again. After we put our shoes onto the mat for the sanitizer bot to deal with and started to walk out, the screens by the door told us what our tabs were, debited our accounts, and told us that it would see us next week.
I'm sure that Bill will stop by tomorrow afternoon to push the button and silence the noise from the electrical panel for another 24 hours, just like he always has.
....Right???????
I worked on an automated reply system like this previously and we had intentional delays with randomness as well as variance in our responses to make it “feel more human”.
The advantage of a bot is for owner of a bot, not for those forced to use that bot. So, owners are incentivized to lie about bot usage.
The underlying problem with today's world is that people only want to solve their problem at the cost of everyone else. Everything else (like bot's, ai) is only a tool which is used on the way to enrich an individual.
We could have the Swiss model, which is a bit of a culture shock: the customer support line is a paid service like a premium rate 1-900 number. It's very hard to wrap your head around as an American, but it does result in customer support that's very fast, and they either solve your problem quickly or not. And there is an incentive alignment, where you pay for the good support as a separate service, so it should not affect the base price of the good.
In a competitive industry, paid support would be a win-win. High support customers pay for the support they use, and less demanding customers don't pay anything. And if the product needs lots of support because of quality, then customers can choose a competitor.
I will go out on a limb and suggest that they are probably happy that you’ve self-selected out of the process.
I’m not saying your expectations are unreasonable, but you have higher expectations than most consumers, and that ultimately becomes a pain in their ass.
Several folks have noted that my immediate reply threw them for loops. One told me she thought it was spam that I responded so quickly.
Rover has a “Star Sitter” designation and response time is one of the metrics. Star Sitters show up at the top of the algorithm’s results so I’m incentivized to keep it up. Plus; I absolutely despise waiting forever for others to reply and I want to make sure I get bookings, knowing there are MANY available sitters in my area.
I never would have thought it was spammy or suspicious AI behavior. Thank you for cementing it in my mind that maybe I’m a little too eager. Considering I’m entirely booked out until mid-October, I’m either doing something right or people are that desperate for a good human to watch their pup for them.
“ps— hope I hit my goal of responding in <5min like I said in my ad!”
(w/biz hours mentioned in ad)
If you can’t be bothered to write something to me personally, why should I deal with you? :)
--------
[1] I think it was one of theirs, could have been one of the Android phone makers that has gone all-in on nagging me to give their bot something to do with itself.
Most people fail to come to a conclusion by induction so they'll find enough customers.
For apartments, when I would look they wouldn't even bother to tour me half the time. I couldn't believe it.
I'm trying to give you thousands of dollars a month. In a CONTRACT. And you won't even show me the product I'm buying?
One place told me it was dark outside (4pm...), and they didn't feel comfortable touring me around the apartments. Jesus Christ, are we in Gotham? Many just ghosted my touring requests. One turned me down because it was raining (???). I would show up in person in the office, and many would still refuse to tour me.
They want your money, they are just getting stricter on how they will accept it in order to limit liability and meet compliance, and also maximize profitability.
Much, much better tools these days to address both of those than there were 20 years ago.
They'd rather rent to someone who is desperate enough to rent without seeing it. It's not that they don't want money, it's that they don't want your money, they want someone more abusable instead.
This happened before "AI" too. When all it takes is clicking an "apply now" button on LinkedIn some desperate people will spam any job they see.
Magicly, the spamming stopped, and we only had applications from good genuine candidates with a real interest in the role.
The job of any technology (like email and "apply now" buttons) is to make life easier and better. If it doesn't do that, then don't use it!
I recall seeing one where you had to send a specific payload to an https endpoint to apply (or it might have been an automated screen immediately after the application was submitted). Forcing potential candidates to briefly open the curl manpage seemed like a similarly elegant solution to me. I doubt it works as well in the era of LLMs though.
At this point, we think using AI and being able to use AI effectively is a skill in and of itself. When you're hired, you'll have access to AI. You'd be expected to be able to use said AI effectively.
So, we still give you a FizzBuzz. You can use AI. Even if we told you not to use AI, we know almost everyone would use AI. But you have to understand the FizzBuzz and be able to explain it to us and make changes to it "live". The amount of people that get weeded out just by having to explain the code they "coded themselves" is staggering (even pre-AI, even on a take home where you had no "OMG I suck at live coding" pressure).
[0] The most reliable strategy I've found for that is choosing questions where the wrong answer is the right answer for some much more common question. Actually spending a few seconds and solving the problem easily lets a human pass, but an LLM with insufficient weights or training data (all of them) doesn't stand a chance.
I’ve mostly given up on all of the standard techniques for interviewing sadly, just because “using ai” makes a lot of them trivial, and have resorted to the good old fashioned interview, where I screen for drive, values and root cause seeking, and let people learn tech/frameworks/etc themselves.
But I was wondering, isn’t a take home question still good, if you give a more open ended and ambitious task, and let people vibe code the solution, review the result but ask for the prompt/session as well?
People will be doing that during normal work anyway, so why not test that directly?
One such question (obviously tailored to the role I'm hiring for) is asking whether SoA or AoS inputs will yield a faster dot-product implementation and whether the answer changes for small vs large inputs, also asking why that would be the case.
I typically offer a test with a small number of such questions since each one individually is noisy, but overall the take-home has good signal.
> why not test that directly?
The big thing is that you don't have enough time to probe everything about a candidate, especially if you're being respectful of their time and not burning too much of yours. Your goal is to maximize information gain with respect to the things you care about while minimizing any negative feelings the candidate has about your company.
I could be wrong, but vibe coding feels like another skill which is more efficient to probe indirectly. In your example, I would care about the prompt/session, mostly wouldn't care about the resulting code, and still don't think I would have enough information to judge whether they were any good. There are things I would want to test beyond the vibe coding itself.
In particular, one thing I think is important is being able to reason about code and deeply understand the tradeoffs being made. Even if vibe coding is your job and you're usually able to go straight from Claude to prod, it's detrimental (for the roles I'm looking at) to not be able to easily spot memory leaks, counter-productive OO abstractions, a lack of productive OO abstractions, a host of concurrency issues LLMs are kind of just bad at right now, and so on. My opinion is that the understanding needed to use LLMs effectively (for the code I work on) is much more expensive to develop than any prompt engineering, so I'd rather test those other things directly.
You can likely control for that, if you either interview in person or via screen sharing. (Yes, it could be faked, but that's harder.)
The amount of people that can't even navigate "their own" code is astonishing. Never mind explaining what it does or making changes.
I get tons of spam that could be generated by even a basic LLM based on public information about me, but for positions that are not a reasonable fit.
Apparently, it is common for such cold calls to come from “recruiters” that are not affiliated with the hiring firm, but are trying to collect some sort of referral bounty.
I have no idea why an HR department would be dumb enough to set up such a pipeline (by actually paying for the third party “service”), but I guess once they have the program in place, they also need an LLM to screen spam applications.
"We saw your profile on github and thought you might be a suitable candidate for our open position at $CRYPTO startup.
PS you must be a US-citizen, and the job is 100% on-site"
Those things seem to be blasted out with no regard for my location - I'm not looking for a developer job anyway - but certainly not one in another country.
Spamming github users seems to be the latest growth hack, and it drives me nuts. I made all my repositories archived when I started getting hit with AI-PRs to review, but I'm reaching a point where I think my life would be easier if I just closed the account.
If I want to hire a driver, I can train someone who does not know how to drive, or hire someone who has experience as a driver. I can do either, but I'd prefer to do the latter in most cases.
I'm dealing with this all the time in recruitment. It can be done. People lie all the time or don't read the requirements. You need a way for the ones who really do know how to do the thing you need to demonstrate it to you.
Have you ever been in a situation where you had to hire someone to help you with something? Would you really follow your own advice? Your advice does not make sense for carpenters, cooks, or drivers. Why should it make sense for programmers?
Years ago, I hired people at closer to entry level. If they had experience that was a bonus but if they didn't we trained them. If they didn't respond to the training, they were let go after a probationary period.
So you waste the weekend on this project when you had no chance from the beginning. And the time restrictions they list mean nothing since if you actually stop after x hours, they will just pick the person who spent the whole weekend and did a more complete job.
I've done quite a few interviews and as long as the interviewee maybe said something like "it would be better to use a shadow DOM" and could explain what a shadow DOM is, I would be pretty happy with that
Expecting someone to build a full shadow DOM as part of their interview take home is excessive
The worst is when they basically ask how you'd build their product. Some people can't handle a different answer, even as they're busy hiring you to improve things.
It's not really bad to ask someone to do a design session with them and "build their product with them from scratch" isn't inherently bad. That's actually pretty neat if you ask me.
What's bad is if there's only a single answer and that's whatever they actually built themselves, which might be a pile of thrown together startup poo that was never cleaned up. But you have the same problem with all sorts of "needless trivia" type questions.
And then do you really want to work at a company, where you can't have a proper "pros and cons of different approaches" type of discussion? If you got hired, you'd have those kinds of discussions with them on an ongoing basis. Bad on the company for letting that person do the hiring but they got what they deserved so to speak.
Just to make an analogy:
If they simply ding you for using 4 spaces coz they use 8, that's bad.
If they ask you why you use 4 spaces, they use 8, give them pros and cons and are there any other approaches and what are the pros and cons of those? That's a good interview so to speak. As an interviewer I would give bonus points if the candidate says something like "I used 4 spaces because I thought that's what you guys were probably using coz everyone's moved away from 8 spaces but secretly I love usings tabs and setting tabwidth to what I want but in reality it really really doesn't matter as long as it's consistent across the codebase as humans can get used to almost everything and this one isn't worth fighting over. Linters and formatters exist for a reason".
Who still uses 8? Isn't that like a COBOL thing?
https://www.kernel.org/doc/html/v4.10/process/coding-style.h...
Not because you use 2 spaces. You can argue 2 spaces and the pros and cons and how horizontal scrolling is an issue. One question back would be for example if that means you have huge run-on files where a single function does everything and that's why you need like 17 levels of indentation and that's why only using 2 spaces for each becomes important to you. And then you'd need to argue how that's better for visibility and what might actually be worse about it. If you can do all that, you're hired (if the rest of the interview goes well :P )
Who still uses 8? Isn't that like a COBOL thing?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zero-width_space
Btw, at an old job, some joker developer added or copied 1, and broke the whole testbed. It was quite funny. I came over to the sourcecode hosted in Gitlab, ran my regexes that look for naughty characters. Found it after it ate the devs for half a day.
Then they email me back and said the other candidate did the whole thing and they aren't sure if I know how to style a page now because I only completed the backend part.
Is this one of the tests where I just need to throw together a five minute quickie to get over your “can you program” filter? or do you need me to put together something flashy and memorable to show off my ceiling? If o put together my flashy thing, would I get dinged for over-engineering something where a five minute hack solution was good enough?
- It was designed to be fast to complete (20min max -- not a huge imposition if being hired is likely, obviously very expensive if you're taking one for every job posting).
- I only gave them out after a resume screen. If you had a 0% chance then I didn't waste your time. If you had enough other proof of abilities then I skipped the take-home.
- Candidates were told that it was designed to be fast and that if they couldn't complete it quickly they were unlikely to be successful interviewing either. They still had the option to spend a lot of time if they thought my assessment of the situation was wrong, but part of the point was to allow candidates to gauge their own abilities and not waste their time interviewing without a chance of being hired.
- I did a lot of work behind the scenes calibrating and re-writing the questions individually and as a whole so that the test score correlated very well with interview performance (most interviews administered by not-me, removing a form of bias that's easy to creep in there).
If you want to make it more of a fair consideration of time, consider moving your take home to interviews, that way there isn't a time cost asymmetry. You can enforce your "20 min max" claim this way, you can judge a candidate's performance, thought process and filter out anyone who is LLMing or spending inordinate amounts of time on them.
You will also make a better impression on candidates by investing your time in them in the same way they are with you. Maybe you're hiring kids out of college without experience, but you only have to do so many take home tests before you realize that they're a waste of time, and pass on potential employers who throw them at you, or you learn to just send them your hourly rate for the test.
There is usually a huge disconnect between someone who knows that “this task should take 20mins” and doing it cold in a super high-pressure environment.
People sweat, panic, brain freeze, and are just plain out stressed.
I’ll only OK something like this if we give out a similar but not the same task before the interview so a person can train a bit beforehand.
I’ve heard it all justified as “we want to see how you perform under pressure” but to me that has always sounded super flimsy - like if this is representative of how work is done at this organisation, then do I want to work there in the first place? And if it isn’t, why the hell are you putting people through this ringer in the first place, just sounds inhumane.
If you give unlimited amount of time, you're giving an advantage to people with no life who can just focus on your assignment and polish it as if it were a full time job.
If you give a limited amount of time, then you're making the interview a pressure cooker with a countdown clock, giving a disadvantage to people who are just not great at working under minute-to-minute time pressure.
I started refusing take-home tests a couple of decades ago, but when I did them, this is 100% what I would have done.
The ones we use have a clear scoring system and prepared inputs - all it matters is the generated output.
If you’re some random startup or no name company, I don’t bother. I already have a good job.
If you’re a top name hot company offering $600k+ total comp, I’m going to spend the hour shooting my shot. Even if it’s lower likelihood.
For random company XYZ, I expect humans to sink as much of their time into the process as I do.
Take home tests were never a worthwhile signal. Pre-AI, people would search for solutions or have another person complete it.
The AI point is worth diving into a little. This was a year ago, so SOTA was worse, but I didn't find it terribly hard to write questions AI couldn't solve, whose answers you couldn't search for, and which good candidates could solve. The test was a few of those questions and a few which were easier to cheat, and almost nobody had good scores on just the cheatable section.
I don't think that moat will exist indefinitely, but today's AI just isn't very good at a lot of incredibly basic tasks unless the operator has enough outside knowledge to guide it in the right direction (and if a candidate did that I mostly wouldn't care because, by definition, they had the knowledge I was looking for). I use AI a lot, it's great at a lot of things, some even quite complicated, but it was weaknesses, and those are pretty easy to exploit.
> The test was a few of those questions and a few which were easier to cheat, and almost nobody had good scores on just the cheatable section
I also like how you allow/encourage self-assessment, where if a candidate can't do the test in ~20 minutes under zero pressure, they probably won't be a good fit in the role itself.
Employers can, with a somewhat high (?) degree of certainty, weed out candidates using AI.
In my experience this is the wrong game theory. Unemployed people can make job hunting their full time job, so a 20 minute take home doesn't select for "who delivers the highest quality solution in the least amount of time," it selects for "who is the richest applicant who can burn hours on a take home to deliver a higher quality result than people with less time they can afford to spend?"
Also, nobody should ever self-select themselves out of an interview process. Passing a resume review and getting a callback is about 10% likely: for every job hunt, in my experience , candidates get about 10 callbacks for every 100 resume sends. From there, it's about 20% chance to get to final stage, and from there, maybe 50% to get an offer (you're either their first choice or second; if second, your hiring hinges on whether the first choice accepts). Math is right there: once you pass a resume check, in terms of the volume of applications you've sent, it's optimal to spend far more effort into this gig than into firing off ten or twenty more resumes.
Therefore, even if the candidate doesn't think they're a good fit, they should do everything they can to stay in the game, including lying by omission.
After all they might be engaging in imposter syndrome, right? Why assume for the interviewer that your python skills aren't good enough - maybe the interviewer understands perfectly well that you've only used it for scripts and one off tools, but doesn't care because they personally believe your startup experience is more valuable to them and they believe you can up skill! Maybe the take home was designed poorly by someone who was tasked randomly by a lead to shit out a take home, and it's not an accurate indication of what the job would be like. Maybe they sent you the wrong take home? Maybe it's a good take home but you need money so fuck it, if you manage to sneak in despite not being a good fit, you can just bust ass to upskill and make up the difference before anyone notices. Or fuck it twice, it's a shit market and who knows how much longer you'll be able to sell your labor as an engineer, even if you can only fool them for two weeks, that's two weeks of income while you still keep up your job hunt.
People who have really good jobs aren’t applying for jobs below them, so your applicant pool will always be people who are in an equal or worse position than your job.
No one at, Anthropic, for example, is applying to a job at Geico.
Also I know plenty of people in startup world who are phenomenal engineers that only have companies I've never heard of on their resumes - startups that for one reason or another simply didn't have a news-grabbing exit.
But they’re not. And they won’t. And that is my point. They’d make a ML Engineer post on LinkedIn and get a bunch of people for whom Geico would be a step up.
There will never be a job opening from Geico that someone at Anthropic would apply to.
That’s my point - your pool will always be people who are in a worse position than your job. Being laid off is a worse position than a job.
You’ll never see Anthropic candidates in a Geico hiring pool, unless they were laid off for being lousy and can’t find anything else.
The market is pretty efficient - people wouldn’t bid for jobs that are worse than their current situation.
This still seems like an oversimplification. It's easy to label FAANG, "frontier AI companies," whatever else, but the vast majority of jobs and the vast majority of engineers are in a soup that's maybe able to be split between "startup world" and "enterprise world" but beyond that, difficult to say one is "worse" or "better." And I've worked alongside FAANG people in startup world so, either that isn't a "worse" job and therefore your theory doesn't work because that means it's not really possible to accurately evaluate every single company as objectively worse/better, or, your theory doesn't work because people do apply to "worse" jobs.
GP specifically stated that this was the point of the takehome though. If the person handing it out specifically warns you that struggling with it means you aren't a good fit then if you struggle with it that's not imposter syndrome - you aren't a good fit! Not dropping out at that point is just refusing to acknowledge reality and insisting on wasting everyone's time.
Sure, but, there's nothing incentivizing the candidate to not waste time. At the very least, they can get free interview practice.
I get that that's very annoying when you're on the hiring side, but it's not all so bad in the end, you're getting paid for your time!
I've worked at places that would send out 100. People would spend their weekends working on it and we often wouldn't even look at the submissions.
You're right the time commitment wasn't equal. Early on I spent much more time than the candidates designing and analyzing the test. Afterward, their 20 minutes would usually take me <5min (often <1min for obvious failures and obvious passes, the average brought up due to time analyzing edge cases).
I did read every submission though. It wasn't wasted time for candidates.
Wow, this is a great way of putting it. It's draining enough to go to third- and fourth-round interviews with other humans. Doing it with a series of AI chat bots would be devastating!
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.
It's quite rare for companies to have evidence to support their hiring methods, which unfortunately means it's heavily driven by trends.
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?
On the other hand if you "raise your bar" (let's say you do so by some method that makes it twice as expensive to judge a candidate; twice as likely to reject a candidate that would fit what you need, i.e. doubles your false negative rate; but cuts down on the number of applications by 10x, so that now 1 out of 100 candidates are what you need, which isn't that far off the mark for certain kinds of things), you cut down the effort (and time) you need to spend on finding a candidate by over double.
EDIT: On reflection I think we're mainly talking past each other. You are thinking of a scenario where all stages take roughly the same amount of effort/time, whereas tmorel and I are thinking of a scenario where different stages take different amounts of effort/time. If you "raise the bar" on the stages that take less amount of effort/time (assuming that those stages still have some amount of selection usefulness) then you will reduce the overall amount of time/energy spent on hiring someone that meets your final bar.
Also, if you are having trouble hiring right now, that is 1000% a skill issue. It is easier to hire good talent right now than ever before. So I have absolutely 0 sympathy for this POV. Go down to your HR department if you want to see who is at fault.
PS You fix it by charging $1 to apply for jobs. Took me all of 30 seconds to figure that one out.
Yeah, I don't see anyone lining up to game that system. Maybe you ought to think about that a little longer than 30 seconds.
That way I know I'm not giving money to some huge corporation and they know I think applying to their job should at least cost me Y amounts of currency.
And if they waste more than an hour of my time with the hiring process, they could similarly pay a charity some money per hour.
That was neither me nor the company will feel cheated and in the end, no matter how the hiring turns out, a charity will have benefited.
This could also be used for combating spam elsewhere, like posting in forums, comment sections and so on. To preserve privacy, something like zero-knowledge proofs could be utilized. I don't know how the cryptography would work exactly, but if you can't double spend a credit and you can choose whether to keep it anonymous or not, it could work, too. It would be best if for a given credit spent, you could only disclose your identity to the entity you want access to, not the credit issuing entity.
For spam, it seems like the cost of maintaining a forum like the servers are much lower than the cost of the mods that deal with spam. So instead of paying the forum directly, we lower the need for human mods to spend their time. That way we lower resources to the forum indirectly. The credits could be per post or per account creation. I assume the HN mods' time is worth a lot more than the servers and power HN runs on.
Also, we won't have the issue that PoW and other proofs-of-X's have of being easier to do on some devices, but harder on others (like the power and time it takes to run PoW on a beefy desktop with AES-NI vs an on old phone).
But we'll still have the issue with different standards of living in different places making the credits more or less expensive for the user subjectively. Companies hiring worldwide could require different amounts of credits for applicants from different countries, but for forums this wouldn't work.
A solution to that could be issuers giving credits for local volunteering work. Clean up some garbage from the shore and get a credit regardless of whether you're in the USA or Bangladesh. But if you want to prevent credits from being traded (do we? idk) and, at the same time, have some amount of privacy, how would you do it?
But now you'd have to make sure that credit issuers all over the world only issue credits for real charity-like work. And who's to say how to value picking up garbage vs volunteering at an animal shelter vs donating 1$ to a charity.
It's interesting to think about this, even though I don't have any resource to implement anything like that.
Check all that apply.
Your post advocates a
(X) technical ( ) legislative (?) market-based ( ) vigilante
(X) Requires immediate total cooperation from everybody at once
- for the specific forums, jobs and other things that may use something like this
Specifically, your plan fails to account for
(X) Public reluctance to accept weird new forms of money
- if the credits are treated as money
(X) Armies of worm riddled broadband-connected Windows boxes
- that will always be an issue, but I doubt it's too relevant here
(X) Extreme profitability of spam
- if someone spends a credit for spam and they think it's worth it, it might be an issue. But most spam wouldn't be worth it, IMHO, especially if it will be deleted from a forum, anyway.
and the following philosophical objections may also apply:
(X) Ideas similar to yours are easy to come up with, yet none have ever been shown practical
- well, yeah :)
(X) Sending email should be free
- this isn't about email, but I don't necessarily like having to pay to post. However, lots of forums will remain free, as not everyone will use this idea if it's implemented. And some forums have paid accounts now, anyway.
(X) Why should we have to trust you and your servers?
- why should we trust the credit system - important question, as we haven't thought out how it could be gamed or abused.
(X) Sorry dude, but I don't think it would work.
Obviously there are lots of things to figure out, but I don't see how any one of those would be a deal breaker.
Aren't you ignoring the reports of companies receiving thousands of ChatGPT-written resumes, bots sending applications, and interviews with applicants being live coached by AI?
This is a breakdown of trust on both sides.
The “good” news, was, that it was pretty easy to bin the spam.
If someone has to pay for a stamp it will stop spam applications.
All companies attempt to give the same interviews, just have one centralized organization give two programing questions and two system design questions and some kind of proof once you pass it.
You filter every one that can't pass the interview in the first place, you get a better interview experience, and just focus on experience
Professional certifications are different
We already have such a credential. It's called "lasting two years at a FAANG+ without getting fired". If you do that you can get interviews anywhere.
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.
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.
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.
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! :)
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.
Regardless, such observations are not valid arguments against noticing that a particular situation could be improved in a particular way. The logical outcome of such negative lines of thinking is to ultimately arrive at a mentality of trying to drag others down to your own level rather than to lift them up when possible.
Don't be a crab in a bucket.
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.
Nothing about everyone having their needs met precludes the dirty work getting done - heck, some people even enjoy it!
The idea that everyone would just give up taking care of the necessities is, imo, ridiculous. It smacks of the tired line of “in an emergency, it’s every man for himself and no one will have your back” when history has shown again and again that communities come together and mutual aid flourishes in the face of disaster.
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?
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.
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.
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.
So there is nuance.
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.
Indeed, but - human productive capacity has become so vast, that the only way for there to be scarcity is for it to be artificially maintained.
> The natural human instincts are beyond terrible at allocating resources
Disagree, in the sense that a lot of what we consider "natural" is the result of social circumstances, emphasizing or encouraging the expression of some sentiments and tendencies over others. In other words, "natural" is usually rather artificial.
The mean American has a net worth of $620k. The median American net worth is $192k.
The global mean net worth is $95k. The median is $9k.
https://www.daemonology.net/blog/2011-01-10-inequality-in-eq...
Ancient discussion: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2087267
Hence resource allocation. If there were no physical limit, there would be nothing in need of allocation. Allocation is intrinsically bound to scarcity.
> If there is exactly 1 apple, it is impossible for 2 people to eat it.
Hence resource allocation. If there were an infinite number of apples, there would be nothing in need of allocation. Allocation is intrinsically bound to scarcity.
> There is a large social element involved
There is only the human social element involved. There isn't a magical deity in the sky waving a magic wand or a group of space aliens from Xylos IV deciding who gets what. Resources are allocated only by how people, and people alone, decide they want to allocate them.
You being unable to afford something isn't some fundamental property of the universe. It is simply something people made up at random and decided to run with it. People could, in theory, change their mind on a whim such that suddenly you could become able to afford something.
> The natural human instincts are beyond terrible at allocating resources
Now you're finally starting to get on-topic. So given that you see humans as being beyond terrible at allocating resources, why do you think, if they were relieved of having to handle resource allocation, that they would suddenly become not terrible at everything else in order to see all of those other problems magically disappear, per the contextual parent comment? Not going to happen. The harsh reality is that creating problems is human nature.
> Not being afford something is a 'pretend' state that only exists because everyone agrees to go along with it.
though. If there are n people who want things and (n-1) things, then someone being unable to afford something isn't some pretend state. There is certainly an element of social construct in that the word we use is "afford", if we all agreed to use a different word that'd be possible. But the thing/people ratio being below one is not a social construct; and whatever you want to call it and whatever allocation scheme you want to use there will still be people who can't have one. Someone can't afford the thing.
> You being unable to afford something isn't some fundamental property of the universe.
In many cases it is. Eg, topically, how much economically extractable oil is available on earth is actually a fundamental property of the universe. Ditto most energy emasures like watts of solar energy or power from nuclear decay.
> So given that you see humans as being beyond terrible at allocating resources, why do you think, if they were relieved of having to handle resource allocation, that they would suddenly become not terrible at everything else in order to see all of those other problems magically disappear, per the contextual parent comment?
Well I suppose I don't. Although I'll admit the question is too convoluted for me to be sure of that.
Affordability requires something to exist. Once all the oil is used up it won't be affordability that prevents you from obtaining some. As oil still exists, your ability to afford it is entirely a social construct. There isn't some fundamental property of the universe that prevents you from having that oil. The only thing standing in your way from not getting the oil you want to have is what people believe. Again, resource allocation is entirely a social construct. Scarcity is the reason for that construct. Allocation is not a thing where there is no scarcity.
Ok so jumping back to applies, say I have an apple and Mr A and Mr B want it. I'm going to give the apple to the person who pays me the most money. To keep it simple, this is the only apple. Maybe I've drawn a smiley face on it to make it an artwork, maybe there has been a breakout of Apple Plague, I dunno.
How do you square that with this conception of affordability? Since only one apple exists, is the person who doesn't get the apple in a state where they can afford it even though they didn't have enough money to buy it?
> The only thing standing in your way from not getting the oil you want to have is what people believe.
I'm pretty sure it is physical limits. I can think of a lot of schemes for infinite oil it is were available. There'd be a lot of space travel involved.
You could choose to give the apple to the hungry person. You might choose that because you want their help in a different way. Or because you feel it is right. Or they are your kid. Or you give it to the strong person to have a better alliance.
Or you could have the apple taken from you. You might even have more taken, like your life. The other side has a say too! They both might believe that you shouldn't have it and (might makes right, right?) capitalism wont save you there.
That we don't (or do) take by force is a social construct. That we choose to instead honor an imaginary dollar tied to the intrinsic ability of our government to service its own debts is a social construct. Or the idea that maybe we should split the apple or plant it to make more apples. I can imagine a parent with two kids: "fine, nobody gets an apple, it goes in the trash since we can't agree." Nothing here is "one natural order." It is what people decide. And why they decide is based on squishy human reasoning. Social constructs.
I'm on board with people getting excited about living in a society, it is all pretty magical. But affordability isn't some random social construct, it is in great part about physical limits. Unless you want to redefine what words mean which is always an option available to us.
Your strange and desperate attempts to turn this off-topic continue to be recognized, but for those still reading in good faith, it was resource allocation that was said to be the social construct. Who can afford and who cannot afford something is decided by the whims of people and nothing more.
Scarcity is a physical phenomenon. Only one $thing exists and more than one person wants it. Scarcity. The agreement to transfer that $thing to someone is based on humans respecting made up rules. Society. Social constructions. How we define affordability is different. You can "pay" in different ways, some that don't have physical mapping t real world like "social standing."
The laws of supply and demand and scarcity still apply, yes. But how that plays out is social. People have to agree or fight. "Affordability" is based on what we agree is worth an exchange. You may value the approval of the recipient more than money. What does affordability mean here? To curry favor later with someone else or because your moral framework lets you sleep better (they were a hungry kid and you don't want kids hungry - another kind of scarcity where we define affordability by how hungry you are).
Like you said, unless we redefine words. Then you can have affordability and scarcity mean the same thing.
Edit: snark reduction
Right. Purely a social construct. You are enabled to make that choice because Mr A and Mr B also believe you should be able to make that choice.
But what if they stop believing? Consider that Mr A and Mr B now believe the Mr B has the devine right to the last remaining apple. Do you think they are going to continue to respect that you want the most money for it? Of course not. They'll simply take it from you.
> I'm pretty sure it is physical limits.
Do you mean like if you attempted to take oil that isn't considered to be yours that an army will roll in and destroy you? That is quite likely, but the consideration of it not being yours and even the army itself are social constructs. That only plays out because the people believe in it. If, instead, people believed that the oil should be yours, you'd have no issue.
Again, whether or not you can afford oil — or anything else — simply comes down to whether or not people believe you should have it. It is entirely a social construct.
That is what I'm asking you. Are you saying that you just want to use a different word capture the idea that only one person can have the apple? Because instead of saying Mr A can't afford the apple you're saying that Mr A can't have the apple because of a divine right ... that looks a lot like it has the same implications as affordability.
The social construct you're pointing at is the labelling of the situation rather than the underlying physics of the situation, is where I'm going with this. If scarcity is a factor, then affordability exists as a reality. You can relabel it as a social construct, but you can't escape the real world.
> Do you mean like if you attempted to take oil that isn't considered to be yours that an army will roll in and destroy you?
I mean that more than the social limits, the real limits are the bigger part of why I can't do what I want with oil.
Exactly. Now you're starting to get it. Mr B being able to get an apple by "devine right" and him being able to afford the apple are the exact same thing. And as you witnessed, Mr B was suddenly able to afford an apple he previously may not have been able to afford just because on a whim people changed what they believed in. So, as you can now plainly see, resource allocation is entirely a social construct, just as I said originally.
> The social construct you're pointing at is the labelling of the situation rather than the underlying physics of the situation, is where I'm going with this.
In other words you are trying to randomly change the subject? Resource scarcity is a thing. That much is true. We couldn't recognize resource allocation if it wasn't. But it is not the particular subject we are discussing.
The discussion, in case you have already forgotten, is about how better resource allocation would, apparently, solve many other problems people face. Whereas I am dubious of the claim. My take is that if humans are screwing up something as simple as resource allocation, they're going to continue to also screw up everything else even after you've taken resource allocation out of their hands such that all the other problems will remain.
Is this weird diversion of yours because you want to support the original assertion emotionally but can't actually stand behind it logically and hoping that if you can steer us into talking about something else that that we'll forget all about it?
All of these examples are irrelevant. Resource allocation happens because of scarcity, not alongside it.
> There is enough food produced to feed the entirety of humanity, probably several times over, but the social and political problem of who the food gets distributed to is the limiting factor, so hunger exists.
We theoretically produce enough calories to feed the entirety of humanity, but we do not come anywhere close to producing enough nutrients to feed the entirety of humanity. Calories are not sufficient to stave off hunger. One must also meet their nutrient needs to become "full". This is one of the reasons for why we see obesity: People continue to eat even after their caloric needs are met as nutrient deficiencies sees them continue to want to eat more to satisfy what is lacking.
However, even calories are only theoretically sufficient when you ignore the inefficiencies in the food supply system. Even if the social order was perfection, we don't have the technology or know-how to avoid those inefficiencies. It is, for now, a necessary part of the food supply chain.
They're the same thing. The point of food is to provide energy and the constraint limiting food availability is energy.
Have they? Aside from maybe Revolutionary Catalonia, which only stood up for a few years*, we haven't actually tried anything else since the emergence of capital. Obviously pre-neolithic humans lived under a different model, but that is because capital didn't exist yet.
The closest thing to an aberration was the USSR. Despite all the lip service paid to trying to suggest otherwise, in the end it remained under capitalism, standing out only because a small group of capitalists managed to seize control of all the capital.
* Which ironically, given what the USSR stood for on paper, fell down to war pressure from the USSR. Less ironic when you remember that the USSR was, in practice, actually most interested in capitalism for the benefit of the "elite", of course.
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.
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.
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.
Seems like a good screening. Atleast it's better than - "what are your accomplishments.?"
Honestly for dealing with job application spam, this sounds like a neat way to handle this, but without that context, it is just weird. Also it seems to be obsolete against people using LLMs for these applications, I expect them to be able to just invent an answer for that question just fine.
The other poster said it's just a question to easily filter out applicants who aren't paying attention, and it seems as good a method as any. Say "just a cup of coffee" and move on. If the interviewer continues to talk about breakfast or other irrelevant stuff, then I'd just end the conversation. But they can have one for free.
But on the subject, I have no idea how companies manage to screw up their hiring process this much. I used to sometimes interview and hire people and found it to be the easiest thing ever, and I never had the need to do these weird games or more than a phone interview to find great employees. How hard is it to just focus on the exact task of the job and find a candidate who understands it and has a good attitude?
> And that's something interviewers are looking for.
I understood this answer to be part of the written application, in an interview I would just classify this as pointless small talk and just answer something.
> Just the fact that you're ready to go all-in arguing about a detail
This is HN, sir. Going all-in on detail is part of the culture.
And even outside those periods, it's completely unrelated to the job or the applicant's suitability for it. It might be fine as small talk when setting a candidate at ease or as an icebreaker, but it's unreasonable to expect to form a judgement based on their answer.
Besides, it's the sort of thing that an LLM-based system should easily be able to handle. I'm not sure it would ever give you any sort of useful signal.
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.
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.
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.
So the meaningful difference is that unlike a test you don't know what it's looking for and you don't know if it's ranking you objectively.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.)
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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...
there is issue only if AI is encoded with human bias, but treated as neutral and impartial judge
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.
"better" is an objective evaluation that you can do in a test, not in an interview with an AI.
And AIs always have human bias encoded, because it's trained on human data. That's a well known problem with no absolute solution.
How would the company feels if the people applying uses AI avatar to answer the interview questions too?
Dehumanizing [potential] employees by making them talk to (or chat with) AI bots is NOT OK and kinda sucks.
Am I getting it right?
What is human about a career website where you can upload your document and answer questions about your sex life, race, religion, and gender?
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.
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!
I think the actual reason is simply that they're lazy and don't care.
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.
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.