←back to thread

182 points arizen | 4 comments | | HN request time: 0s | source
Show context
gibbitz ◴[] No.43631583[source]
AI generated recruits are a fiction. That's not to say there aren't fake or bait and switch recruits but this idea makes no sense.

Some background. I'm a senior developer who has performed hundreds of interviews and seen dozens of questionable recruits long before AI. Typically the scam is that an offshore consultancy wants to place some roles to collect wages. Many of these agencies are from collectivist cultures, so in the mind of the agency, they all work in our project. This may not be true, but the agency sees the position as theirs, not the recruit's. So they typically don't the issue with putting recruit A in front of the interviewer and then slotting recruit B in after the position is secured. I've seen this done with A talking while B moves their lips on camera. Now with chatGPT (and earlier to some degree with just Google Search) we just see applicants eyes focused on something they're reading when we ask questions. All of this is just as easy as an AI generated applicant (if not easier) and quite likely to get the recruit hired.

A lot of this narrative is pointing the finger at China, North Korea and Russia/Ukraine. The best candidates I've fielded have been Ukrainian, Russian and Chinese. These are countries well known for their tech sectors. North Korea has executed the largest crypto heists in history. These are not groups who need to fake it.

So who does this narrative serve? It serves the RTO CEOs. This makes CEOs scared to hire remote workers and lets the ones who demand it have a reason.

If anything the panic around AI should reinforce the need to think critically about these things.

replies(16): >>43631753 #>>43631832 #>>43631862 #>>43631952 #>>43631976 #>>43632034 #>>43632288 #>>43632297 #>>43632579 #>>43633854 #>>43634352 #>>43634740 #>>43634763 #>>43636692 #>>43638619 #>>43643574 #
everdrive ◴[] No.43631832[source]
We've had more than a few in my company. We work in Cybersecurity for the company, so we've definitely seen them and seen the details. I don't actually think they're that hard to avoid .. but to say they're not a problem at all is not fair. I agree with you that if taken the wrong way that this is just ammunition for "return to office" efforts.

A LOT of people are far worse at interviewing than they think they are. And so, a bullshit artist can get hired. Technology now allows these bullshit artists to propagate more, and do more damage than would have previously be possible. AI in the workplace is a similar problem. Can you tell the different between someone who really just leans on ChatGPT all day but is actually incompetent? Probably so, but someone who was that incompetent just wouldn't have previously been able to hang on for quite as long, or deceive so many people.

[edit]

It's clear that my comment was not clearly written -- when I said "A LOT of people are far worse at interviewing than they think they are," I was referring to the people holding the interviews, and not referring to candidates. I'm shocked at just how bad a lot of folks are at holding interviews, and just how misplaced their confidence in their ability seems to be.

replies(7): >>43631861 #>>43631886 #>>43631977 #>>43631986 #>>43634405 #>>43636085 #>>43638251 #
lq9AJ8yrfs ◴[] No.43631886[source]
> A LOT of people are far worse at interviewing than they think they are.

This works both ways right? Would it be fair to say that interview processes don't differentiate good hires from bullshit artists? Feels like framing the problem differently might make it tractable.

replies(2): >>43632312 #>>43643560 #
the_snooze ◴[] No.43632312[source]
>Would it be fair to say that interview processes don't differentiate good hires from bullshit artists?

Anyone involved in interviewing really needs to ask themselves "what are we testing for?" In my world, we require anyone who makes it to the full in-person interview to give a technical talk on any topic they want, followed by Q&A from an audience that has a broad collective knowledge base. This has the benefits of:

- Letting the candidate start the interview on strong ground of their choosing

- Giving both the candidate and the team a chance to talk shop in a way that simulates the day-to-day work context

- Offering an opportunity for the candidate to gauge how curious and cordial their potential future colleagues are

- Making it very obvious if the candidate is BSing if they can't answer live questions about something they chose to present

replies(4): >>43632513 #>>43632577 #>>43634716 #>>43634727 #
gavinhoward ◴[] No.43632513[source]
Actually, that sounds brilliant. The only problem is taking into account those that are not good at public speaking.

Is your company hiring?

replies(3): >>43632832 #>>43633311 #>>43635199 #
1. the_snooze ◴[] No.43633311[source]
>The only problem is taking into account those that are not good at public speaking.

A very common concern, but overblown in my experience. If you notice, I never actually said "judge the candidate's presentation skills" (or anything of the sort) in why I think this process is great. The presenation is really just level-setting; the candidate gets to set the topic and give sufficient context for a conversation to occur. The presentation is at most the first 15 minutes out of a ~3 hour in-person interview process. That's how little it matters.

It's the Q&A and subsequent discussions that matter.

replies(2): >>43633600 #>>43634619 #
2. gavinhoward ◴[] No.43633600[source]
Those sound like very good adjustments.
3. ameliaquining ◴[] No.43634619[source]
The problem is that interviewers have a strong tendency to judge candidates based on whether they come across as self-confident, even when instructed not to. It's possible to get people to not do this, but it requires fairly rigorous training. tptacek wrote about this a decade ago: https://sockpuppet.org/blog/2015/03/06/the-hiring-post/
replies(1): >>43634810 #
4. the_snooze ◴[] No.43634810[source]
I'd argue the "presentation and Q&A" format addresses that directly. The candidate gets to pick exactly what the interview is going to be about, at least at the beginning, so they have full control over first impressions. No gotchas at all. Who wouldn't pick something they're confident about?

If someone thinks Cmake is super cool and knows all sorts of great use cases for it, then they should present that. They should also be prepared to answer open-ended follow-up questions like "broadly speaking, how could a project transition from something like Automake to Cmake?" or "what are some footguns in Cmake and how can we avoid them?"