Hacker News Reader

Comment by dice | Hacker News Reader

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.

View on HN

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.

That works only for a minute. Then every company having an AI interview stage will "level with you".

You're right, but this is always true in recruitment. Anything that gives you an edge won't last long as it will be copied if it works well.

I used a simple “tell me what you had for breakfast” line to filter out people who don’t read. It required no work from the applicant but filtered out some of the spam. I wonder if an AI-resistant version could be made.

Asking for personal information or other stuff that isn't required for the application is weird and somewhat illegal, so maybe I would have ignored it even if I noticed it while reading.

I think that someone getting hung up on something so irrelevant would probably not be a good culture fit.

I agree. If I see "unfortunately we receive hundreds of applications from people who don't read the job description, please include the word banana in your application" I will be sympathetic. If I "see interview with our ai bot first" I will nope out.

What you had for breakfast is not personal information, and of course nowhere near illegal. The worst employees are those who start out with an attitude that the employer is their enemy like this.

Requiring to disclose your breakfast habits for a job application has not anything to do with your merit to the company, and gives grounds to the possibility of choosing people on sympathy to their answers to that question. It became frowned to include a picture into a CV, because this feeds implicit biases, why should that be any different with alimentary behaviour?

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.

Just the fact that you're ready to go all-in arguing about a detail of small talk and start talking about legality and such, is employability poison. And that's something interviewers are looking for. I agree that it's a weird question, but one that the person being interviewed can easily just pass without it being a big deal.

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?

As I said I would have just ignored that request in an application, because it sounds inappropriate. I would just give the context that not all people not writing an answer failed to read that request.

> 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.

Well said!

You can just lie. There is literally no wrong answer here.

Any data in an application affects the likelyhood to be employed, that is irrelevant whether that is actually true.

In many countries (certainly the EU and UK), religion is certainly considered personal information, and this sort of question skirts fairly close to that if asked during eg. Lent or Ramadan.

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.

>I used a simple “tell me what you had for breakfast” line to filter out people who don’t read.

Seems like a good screening. Atleast it's better than - "what are your accomplishments.?"

At this point just save yourself the 90s per resume and just throw out 50% or more of the resumes. At least then you might get more time to assess how good the remaining resumes are.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com