←back to thread

182 points arizen | 1 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 #
codegladiator ◴[] No.43631753[source]
> putting recruit A in front of the interviewer and then slotting recruit B in after the position is secured

reality is way more messy and worse. There are multiple actors involved in each part. Eg 2-3 "actors" for visual screen are ready for each call, 2-4 "audio" knowledge only experts on the call, 1 dedicated speaker, 1 person coordinating answers from audio folks to actor folks.

they are even ready for once in a while visit to offices in us, so they have actors there on the field as well ready to attend calls (probably 1 to 1 mapping after first visit)

and the work assigned is assigned to a completely different set of people, not involved in any of above. those folks and these folks dont interact.

i have worked part time as one of the "audio" person in above interviews. also involved on work side. ama.

replies(2): >>43631809 #>>43632575 #
transcriptase ◴[] No.43631809[source]
… what’s the point?
replies(3): >>43631850 #>>43631857 #>>43632883 #
codegladiator ◴[] No.43632883[source]
money is made, people are living on this. surely better than call center scams ? because work is being delivered. work from fortune 500 companies end up here.
replies(1): >>43634600 #
LargeWu ◴[] No.43634600[source]
"because work is being delivered"

This is debatable.

My company now mandates all contractors sourced via one specific firm, and more recently that 70% of contractors are located "offshore", which in practice means India. Of the 5 contractors they have placed, I've let 4 go for performance reasons. Even at the rates they're getting paid (about 25% what a domestic resource would get) they're net-negative value.

replies(2): >>43637697 #>>43640693 #
1. codegladiator ◴[] No.43640693{4}[source]
redhat openshift is partly developed by this work. I know its not great. the "engineers" working there are afraid to touch the code even beyond whats asked of them.

> This is debatable

work is being delivered is relative, not talking about good work or great work. its average at best. The debate you want to do maybe is if this is better than call center scams