[madeofpalk]

If a company I am interviewing at tried to make me interview with some LLM instead of sitting down with an actual person, I would dip from the process. To me, only junk companies would use such a tool, so I guess it does serve the candiates as a massive red flag.

[CharlieDigital]

Have to hard agree on this.

Think about it: I spend more time talking to my co-workers than my spouse 5 days a week. Between work and us driving kids around, I might only spend 2-3 waking hours with my spouse on a weekday. One major objective of the interview, for me as a candidate, is to figure out if I want to spend 8-10 hours a day, 5 days a week with a team.

[paulluuk]

For my interview at Google I wish I had sat with an LLM. Instead, I got this newly graduated engineer who just gave me a bunch of leetcode tasks. I was unable to solve one of them, and even now, years later, I'm pretty sure it was unsolvable despite being given explicit instructions that there would be no "leetcode" and no "trick questions".

[kenschu]

Agreed! An LLM interviewer is probably almost insulting. The idea here is that the signals are implicit in the user's coding patterns (e.g in a take-home format etc)

[mystified5016]

So the candidate is being interviewed and rejected by an AI without their knowledge or consent.

Most people would consider that quite rude, yes.

[ahoka]

I wonder if GDPR Art. 22 is applicable here?