[MrBrobot]

> Candidates tell Fortune that AI interviewers make them feel unappreciated to the point where they’d rather skip out on potential job opportunities, reasoning the company’s culture can’t be great if human bosses won’t make the time to interview them. But HR experts argue the opposite; since AI interviewers can help hiring managers save time in first-round calls, the humans have more time to have more meaningful conversations with applicants down the line. “This gives me a bad feeling about your company” “But you’re wrong”

[neilv]

> “This gives me a bad feeling about your company” “But you’re wrong”

"Now you gave me two bad feelings about the company."

[Loughla]

It's not my actions causing this it's just your perspective.

Rule number 1; everyone's perspective is their reality, regardless of your beliefs or intentions.

[threetonesun]

Same argument for removing customer service with chatbots or AI. It's entirely untrue, and creates a much worse customer experience, but because people drop out your KPIs / NPS is based off of people who were willing to put up with shit to get to a real human.

[DavidWoof]

Give me an AI chatbot over someone with poor English skills reading a script any day of the week. My problem probably isn't unique, it's probably something fairly obvious that was vague in the instructions.

Now, the important thing is offer a way to upgrade to a human. But I have no problem at all starting with AI, in fact I honestly prefer it.

[AnimalMuppet]

Well... is a chatbot for customer service really all that much worse than a human who is not permitted to deviate from their script?

[dfxm12]

What is an AI interview going to glean that it can't already from a resume?

The power imbalance is already so far tipped to the employer side. This verbiage doesn't even consider the applicant a human with time worth saving or worth having meaningful conversations!

[remyp]

Gleaning information isn't the goal; whittling down deluge of applicants is. For the company, candidate time is free and manager time is massively expensive. The AI tools are cheaper than hiring more HR staff, so companies buy them lest they be haunted by the ghost of Milton Friedman.

Anybody who has been on the hiring side post-GPT knows why these AI tools are getting built: people and/or their bots are blind-applying to every job everywhere regardless of their skillset. The last mid-level Python dev job I posted had 300 applicants in the first hour, with 1/4 of them being from acupuncturists and restaurant servers who have never written a line of code. Sure, they're easy to screen out, but there are thousands to sift through.

Having said that, I don't like AI interview tools and will not be using them. I do understand why others do, though.

[aflag]

I don't want more time having meaningful conversations with human bosses. I just want to have a normal interview.

[bluefirebrand]

> But HR experts argue the opposite

Once again proving that somehow HR has become captured by bug people

[adamors]

That happened when they started to refer to people as “resources”.

[henry2023]

"HR Experts"