[ta_1138]

There are many use cases for which the price can go even higher. I look at recent interactions with people that were working at an interview mill: Multiple people in a boiler room interviewing for companies all day long, with a computer set up so that our audio was being piped to o1. They had a reasonable prompt to remove many chatbot-ism, and make it provide answers that seem people-like: We were 100% interviewing the o1 model. The operator said basically nothing, in both technical and behavioral interviews.

A company making money off of this kind of scheme would be happy to pay $200 a seat for an unlimited license. And I would not be surprised if there were many other very profitable use cases that make $200 per month seem like a bargain.

[yosito]

So, wait a minute, when interviewing candidates, you're making them invest their valuable time talking to an AI interviewer, and not even disclosing to them that they aren't even talking to a real human? That seems highly unethical to me, yet not even slightly surprising. My question is, what variables are being optimized for here? It's certainly not about efficiently matching people with jobs, it seems to be more about increasing the number of interviews, which I'm sure benefits the people who get rewarded for the number of interviews, but seems like entirely the wrong metric.

[vundercind]

Scams and other antisocial use cases are basically the only ones for which the damn things are actually the kind of productivity rocket-fuel people want them to be, so far.

We better hope that changes sharply, or these things will be a net-negative development.

[wpietri]

Right? To me it's eerily similar to how cryptocurrency was sold as a general replacement for all money uses, but turned out to be mainly useful for societally negative things like scams and money laundering.

[lcnPylGDnU4H9OF]

It sounds like a setup where applicants hire some third-party company to perhaps "represent the client" in the interview and that company hired a bunch of people to be the interviewee on their clients behalf. Presumably also neither the company nor the applicant disclose this arrangement to the hiring manager.

[yosito]

So, another, or several more, layers of ethical dubiousness.

[YeGoblynQueenne]

>> My question is, what variables are being optimized for here?

The ones that start with a "$".

[interludead]

Yep, deceptive practices like this undermine trust in the hiring process

[fschuett]

If any company wants me to be interviewed by AI to represent the client, I'll consider it ethical to let an AI represent me. Then AIs can interview AIs, maybe that'll get me the job. I have strong flashbacks to the movie "Surrogates" for some reason.