• Kissaki@feddit.org
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    3 days ago

    “streamline” and “objective skill assessment”

    What the heck. Use ai for application filtering and scheduling if it works well. But I can only see it being awful at voice interviews and assessment. At least in my job field.

  • HubertManne@piefed.social
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    4 days ago

    I have not had one and so Im like. I don’t know if it would bother me, but then again. I look for addresses and if I don’t find them I skip that listing and I demand that quick calls be scheduled. So Im guessing I might start avoiding places once I experience this. Its not really a risk per se as there is pretty much unlimited things to apply to.

  • Aceticon@lemmy.dbzer0.com
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    edit-2
    4 days ago

    The fallout of the consequences of all this use of AI is going to be massive.

    The distribution of mistakes that humans make is not probabilistically uniform but rather weighed towards smaller mistakes, because people are rational so they pay more attention to possible errors with big consequences than they do to those with smaller consequences and generally put much more effort into avoiding the former.

    Things like LLMs pretty much have a uniform distribution of errors, with just as much big ones with big consequences as small ones since they’re text predictors which don’t actually reason their responses hence don’t consider anything which includes not checking for errors, which is why some LLM hallucinations are so obviously stupid for thinking beings (and others are obviously very dangerous, such as the “glue on pizza” one).

    I suspect the accumulation of the consequences of LLMs making all sorts of “this can/will have big nasty consequences” mistakes in all manner of areas over a couple of years is going to be tons of AI adopting companies collapsing left and right due to problems with customers, products, services, employees and even legal problems (I mean, there are people using AIs in Accounting, which is just asking for bit fat fines from the IRS when the AI makes one of those “big mistake that would be obvious for a human”) and this is before we even go into how much the AI bubble is propping the stockmarket in the US.

  • HertzDentalBar@lemmy.blahaj.zone
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    4 days ago

    “The truth is, if you want a job, you’re gonna go through this thing,” Adam Jackson, CEO and founder of Braintrust, a company that distributes AI interviewers

    Only good capitalist is a dead capitalist.

  • Broken@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    4 days ago

    I mean, if the company doesn’t think you’re worth it to show up and see if you are right for the position, then how crappy are they going to treat you when you work for them? It’s a red flag and saving job hunters time by eliminating that company as an option.

  • tatann@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    4 days ago

    Personally I’d rather talk to a robot than someone from HR, at least there’s a hope of humanity in there

    • aurelar@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      4 days ago

      Agree… I’ve watched some ChatGPT interviews on YouTube, and they’ve all been more polite than any person I’ve interviewed with at any job.

  • panda_abyss@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    4 days ago

    I would pass on a company that tries to put me through an AI interview.

    I get the CEO says people will have to, but there are a lot of companies out there.

    I’ve already put in my time at soulless corporations, they’re fundamentally incompatible with me.

    • HeyListenWatchOut@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      edit-2
      4 days ago

      When a company is using AI in place of a person, it’s not a sign of that they are “futuristic” or “forward-thinking…” It’s a sign they are cheap, chase fads, and make short-sighted decisions that are not designed to improve their relationship with their customer.

      Anyone using some headless white-label monthly subscription version of ChatGPT in an attempt to save a nickel on their bottom line - even if it means making everything worse for the company, product, employees, and customers in every way possible - is probably someone you don’t want to do ANY kind of business with - whether you’re a contractor, customer, or client.

  • SillyDude@lemmy.zip
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    4 days ago

    I’m drinking sangria at 8am in the middle of the desert. If society wants me back someone is going to have to be very nice to me. Fuck your robots, I need a hug :(

  • Shirasho@lemmings.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    4 days ago

    HR already doesn’t do their jobs. They really want to use AI to make themselves completely obsolete, huh?

    • unphazed@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      4 days ago

      My company has a hub for all the information needed by employees. Takes 40min+ to find the thing you need. Health insurance and FMLA help desk has avg hold tikes of 2+ hours (not an exaggeration, 45min if you call at opening)

      • JackbyDev@programming.dev
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        4 days ago

        I’m a contractor and have to periodically take tests to acknowledge I read handbooks (like everyone does) and it always tells me to download the handbook from the HR site, but when I go there it won’t let me because I’m a contractor.

    • atticus88th@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      4 days ago

      My employer had my team reduce the workload of our HR by automating 80% of their tasks. No tears were shed when we saw them leave and never come back.

        • Nougat@fedia.io
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          4 days ago

          Typically, the hiring decision is made by the person the position reports to. They’ll have a salary cap to adhere to, which is certainly too low, which means the employee who is willing to take the position is likely underqualified or incompetent. It may also be in the hiring manager’s interest to fill the position with someone less competent for a variety of reasons. You don’t want the candidate to be good enough to have the opportunity to job hop right out in nine months. You don’t want the candidate to be someone who would challenge your decisions and put your own job in jeopardy. Maybe you just need a warm body in a role immediately, fully intending to fire them when you find the “right” candidate, and then just never do that.

          HR just does the paperwork.

          • This is fine🔥🐶☕🔥@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            4 days ago

            Typically, the hiring decision is made by the person the position reports to.

            Not everywhere. In many cases HR will get a checklist and then they will legit ignore good candidates while trying to adhere to that. Usually happens in technical positions.

          • PlasticExistence@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            4 days ago

            Let’s not absolve HR from their hand in this process. They’re the ones that setup ATSs based on keywords they don’t understand, and they’re the ones that do initial contact and interviews, in general anyway.

            I’ve worked at quite a few organizations at this point in my life, and only rarely did a hiring manager get more say than a choice among the pre-selected pool that HR provided. When that wasn’t the case for me, it was because the company or organization was too small to have a full team handling HR stuff. Once it was the company’s accountant (sweet lady though).

            You’re not wrong, but HR doesn’t really add much to this process when the people with the experience and understanding to choose better employees don’t get to participate until a second round.