I would never approve the use of async interviews further down the pipeline, but for screening purposes (from a candidate POV) I personally don't have any problems.
Because interviews are a two-way street. If you can't commit the time to interview and want to offload it to AI, why shouldn't I also have AI take the interview for me? Or you do you think my time is worth less than yours?
This is pretty gross, honestly. I recommend some reflection.
Back in the day, some kind of online sticker company needed a developer. I submitted my resume and they told me via email I needed to pass an online test. The testing was very similar to your company, only of course no AI. I was nervous. Super nervous. Shaking. Psyched myself up for an entire day, then logged in and absolutely crushed it. Crushed that test. It was hard but easier than I expected. Passed 100%. The sticker company then emailed me that they chose someone else, somebody else had a better resume, even though there was no interview. The test was cheap for them, but cost me. So cheap for this sticker company that they could afford to consider my resume only after I had crushed their dumb-ass test.
There needs to be some cost or pain for the interviewers to signal that they actually care.
So, to answer your question, if a company were to outsource their screening calls, it signals to me that they do not have the time to understand their candidates. They simply do not care, which means they don't care for their employees either.
To your other replies, again, this is a screening interview. It aims to assess, in a short time, how you approach a day to day coding problem. It's not about specialised technical requirements - for that you jump on a dedicated technical call. Niju is supposed to sit at the beginning of the technical assessment process.
Again I want to make it clear that the AI is not driving any decisions, it just summarizes some data points.
The technical screening call typically happens after an initial screening chat with HR or the hiring manager. The tech screening interview comes in after that.
If as a hiring organization, you aren't willing to spend the effort, time, and money to provide a good recruiting process, that's a huge red flag for the kind of candidates you want and the kind of employee experience you provide. If you're willing to cut costs in finding candidates, that could signal you're willing to cut costs for retaining candidates too.
I agree and I would never use AI to properly interview someone.
This is a screening interview. It's at the top of the recruitment funnel. The alternative is seeing fewer candidates (because you can't have engineers do non-stop interviews) or just filtering heavily based on CVs. Neither option is good.
This is a screen, though; they are still going to interview you if you pass. The alternative is to screen candidates otherwise in a way that may lead you to be culled (e.g., by your resume) without a chance to get your foot in the door.
parliament32|3 months ago
This is pretty gross, honestly. I recommend some reflection.
radug14|3 months ago
This is a screening interview, and the AI component simply assists the hiring manager, it does not automate the outcome in any way.
rendall|3 months ago
There needs to be some cost or pain for the interviewers to signal that they actually care.
So, to answer your question, if a company were to outsource their screening calls, it signals to me that they do not have the time to understand their candidates. They simply do not care, which means they don't care for their employees either.
radug14|3 months ago
radug14|3 months ago
The technical screening call typically happens after an initial screening chat with HR or the hiring manager. The tech screening interview comes in after that.
yannyu|3 months ago
radug14|3 months ago
This is a screening interview. It's at the top of the recruitment funnel. The alternative is seeing fewer candidates (because you can't have engineers do non-stop interviews) or just filtering heavily based on CVs. Neither option is good.
esafak|3 months ago