There are a couple problems that come to mind. One is that a lot of people aren’t interested or willing to take a one sided interview with a machine. This is more true for candidates who have more options, and they’ll feel disrespected by this. The other is that I doubt this would be accurate or any more useful than an automated resume screen. It’s worth going through this from the candidate’s perspective rather than from the hiring side.
Seems sick, but I am very against it. What if the AI is wrong and removes a very good candidate from the list? Better spend more time with interviews to find actually good candidates, rather than do it quickly and miss on the gems
So what do you do when the context engineer rolls up into chat and jailbreaks the system prompt that was designed? Do you just hire them on the spot? This literally isn’t what LLMs are designed for nor are they good at.
This is neat. Last couple of months, at least 3 people asked me how to select 5 candidate for interview. When we post there are more than 300-500 resumes. If it works as advertised, you will make it.
You can pay this company money to sift through your garbage applications from mainstream job boards or you could just use your brain a little bit to try to attract candidates from places that are biased to above median performers.
In other words, garbage in, garbage out. I think it’s easier to control the input rather than desperately sort through the output. Strategies like employee referrals are known to produce better candidate quality than job board applicants. There are industry conferences, meetups, and other socialization spaces where you’re likely to find higher quality candidates before you even start screening.
Hell, I wouldn’t be surprised a random lottery of the group of candidates with baseline decent resumes isn’t similarly effective, and the best part about that strategy is that it’s free.
I could see this product being good for jobs with low training or experience requirements, but then again once you’re at that level you might as well just go with the random lottery strategy.
There are a couple problems that come to mind. One is that a lot of people aren’t interested or willing to take a one sided interview with a machine. This is more true for candidates who have more options, and they’ll feel disrespected by this. The other is that I doubt this would be accurate or any more useful than an automated resume screen. It’s worth going through this from the candidate’s perspective rather than from the hiring side.
Seems sick, but I am very against it. What if the AI is wrong and removes a very good candidate from the list? Better spend more time with interviews to find actually good candidates, rather than do it quickly and miss on the gems
So what do you do when the context engineer rolls up into chat and jailbreaks the system prompt that was designed? Do you just hire them on the spot? This literally isn’t what LLMs are designed for nor are they good at.
This is neat. Last couple of months, at least 3 people asked me how to select 5 candidate for interview. When we post there are more than 300-500 resumes. If it works as advertised, you will make it.
Btw, don't care about haters, keep building
The problem is the haters are right.
You can pay this company money to sift through your garbage applications from mainstream job boards or you could just use your brain a little bit to try to attract candidates from places that are biased to above median performers.
In other words, garbage in, garbage out. I think it’s easier to control the input rather than desperately sort through the output. Strategies like employee referrals are known to produce better candidate quality than job board applicants. There are industry conferences, meetups, and other socialization spaces where you’re likely to find higher quality candidates before you even start screening.
Hell, I wouldn’t be surprised a random lottery of the group of candidates with baseline decent resumes isn’t similarly effective, and the best part about that strategy is that it’s free.
I could see this product being good for jobs with low training or experience requirements, but then again once you’re at that level you might as well just go with the random lottery strategy.
I don't do AI interviews and I'd guess other qualified senior engineers wouldn't also so your tool is a recipe to hire low quality developers