[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