Mildly Infuriating

It states that every response is checked for AI-generated content

Good thing there is currently no reliable way to guarantee that text was written by a human versus an LLM.

“We can’t be bothered to have a human vet you or put effort into your application, but we fully expect you to put 100% human effort into this.”

Get fucked.

Lol, all LLM-detection methods are bullshit nowadays. A few days back i saw a post where an excerpt from Mary Shelleys Frankenstein was marked as 100% AI-generated. If they use LLMs to interview you, you can use LLMs to respond - tit for tat.

I have seen crazy videos of where people even in video interviews are using AI to live generate a script and reading that. Now some companies require you to share screen to avoid that but people will put their phone under the screen where the camera can't see it instead. I think soon we will return to in person interviews.

My brother was just telling me about this experience. He had to record himself answering questions so the AI can summarize for someone else. Then his human interview was with management lateral to him that were incredibly corpo pos. He didnt even get to the department team He was applying for. I dk how he kept going for this job. It felt like they kept disrespecting him as a person.

Be prepared for when you are hired, you are pushed to use AI as much as possible.

hot take: LLM-attribution detection is the modern "we throw the bones in the air, and the gods tell us the future"

Honor among thieves.

You're supposed to help them rip off others, not rip off them.

I despise the idea of a hiring process that treats the applicant as a supplicant. As a manager I once attended a training session on "Behaviour Based" interviewing. The approach itself - the idea of asking situational questions - had some merit, but the process they taught depending on keeping the applicant in the dark as much as possible and concentrated all the power in the hiring side.

To me the process needs to be two way. The applicant needs to know if the company, and the position itself will be a good fit for them. I can see an applicant asking the same kind of questions, "Can you describe how you would handle a situation where an employee behaved inappropriately to a female coworker?". That kind of thing.

It's beneficial to both sides. The applicant doesn't want to land in a bad fit, and the hiring process is expensive and dealing with the vacancy has its own costs.

Taking the attitude that every applicant is simply wants to get the offer, and will lie and cheat to get it sets a bad tone right from the start, and the approach makes it difficult for the applicant to make an informed decision.

I realize that the OP example is the way that the world is going, but having an AI interview would just be a giant red flag for me. I would be tempted to just set an AI of my own to interact with the company's AI directly and just sit back and watch.

I say, "would be", because I'm retired, and will never have to deal with this BS. However, I hope that the people that I interviewed in the past appreciated the cooperative approach that I tried to take.

Man I'd love to see one of those. Can you ask questions during the AI interview? If so, you could probably burn a shitton of tokens and make it say weird things.

Sadly, I fear it is now too late to burn it all down. The only remaining option is to watch the world burn

Why wouldn't you be looking for someone who can write well?

This feels a little ironic — an AI interviewer warning people not to use AI. 😅 Still, I actually agree with the main point. In a real interview, people don't always explain things perfectly. A genuine answer with awkward wording tells me more than something that sounds professionally written but isn't really the person's experience.

This feels a little ironic — an AI interviewer warning people not to use AI. 😅 Still, I actually agree with the main point. In a real interview, people don't always explain things perfectly. A genuine answer with awkward wording tells me more than something that sounds professionally written but isn't really the person's experience.

If an interviewee can answer all the most difficult questions, in a timely manner, to the satisfaction of the interviewer, there shouldn't be a problem how they got there -- they're qualified.

However, I feel like it's some odd reverse Turing Test where a human has to pretend to be human while being fed answers by AI.

I can imagine this becoming a more frequent occurrence.

So, I propose "The Cyrano Test" as the appropriate term for this scenario.

If you're familiar with Cyrano de Bergerac, or even the Steve Martin film Roxanne, you'll understand the reference.