Hacker News Reader

Comment by WirelessGigabit | Hacker News Reader

My wife recently went through multiple applications after a stint of no work permit.

The amount of stuff they make you fill out that is then parsed with AI is insane.

Indeed ruined a lot. Before if you had an ok resume but we're able to talk to them in person you might be able to convince them.

Now with all those aptitude training you have to do well there.

Not to mention the applications that require you to turn on your webcam (!) while you do them. Disgusting.

That last one by the way was the same company where my wife had an in person interview. She drove there. The interview was on Zoom with somebody in another office.

She declined the offer. Wastefulness and already showing that they're not against monitoring by AI means 0 humanity.

View on HN

Those of us with authority to hire should reject these snake oil practices. What a waste of time to only get candidates who are okay sitting through these dehumanizing experiences.

Don't pay for this cruft, sponsor local meetups instead.

Driving plus zoom describes many corporate jobs I think. How many of us are required to drive to an office to take remote meetings? I imagine a lot.

I know I have to.

I imagine not a lot.

I know I don’t have to.

> Not to mention the applications that require you to turn on your webcam (!) while you do them.

I don't understand what this means. Did she have to turn on her webcam to upload her cv? How does that even make sense.

Also, how is that legal? I thought requiring a photograph to apply for a position is illegal (except for stuff like acting).

There is a lot of cheating going on... This is a way to avoid some of it.

This doesn’t make sense - cheating on what?

From OP:

  > Now with all those aptitude training [...] that require you to turn on your webcam

They are referring to an automated personality or skills test to screen candidates. The webcam is to make sure the applicant is the one actually doing the test. These things are dehumanizing and snake-oil but there’s’s no question that applicant misrepresentation happens, including situations where the person interviewing is a ringer being paid by an agency or the applicant.

I guess I don’t understand how cheating on these things benefits the candidate. Like, you lie about any of that and get put in front of a panel, how’s that going to go?

Generally the people trying to fake their identity or skills in interviews are doing so with remote jobs, with the goal of bumbling along indefinitely once they no longer need to be on camera.

The problem here is that companies have now gone from identity verification to this 'aptitude test' ML bullshit that's just another cover for increasingly weird arbitrary discrimination against applicants.

See this HN thread for all kinds of experiences with hiring fraud: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32996457

It doesn't benefit genuine candidates to blatantly lie. They'll get caught later in the process. But you're assuming identity thieves are acting rationally or fear getting caught. They don't, and they're playing a numbers game. If you get past an interviewer and get fired after two weeks, your salary at a US tech company can be $5k, which is the average annual salary in many developing countries.

I would assume this is an attempt to catch people who hire impersonators for the interview early.

Precisely.

I don't know about other folks here, but in the past decade, we've encountered recruiters who present one candidate when doing a telephone interview and then a different person shows up for the in-person interview.

The idea is that you keep your webcam on your face while you fill out the application for identity verification, to make sure it is actually the applicant. But if you think that's bad, the hot new thing in these hiring startups is that you have to record yourself answering interview questions with some chatbot interviewer, and then some black box model scores it to give you all kinds of psychometric astrology even worse than Myers Briggs. Except it's a bunch of AI snake oil, and as the article says, you get different personality scores if you put on a headscarf or glasses.

In the US, it is illegal per the EEOC, which has barely any resources to actually enforce the law: "Similarly, employers should not ask for a photograph of an applicant. If needed for identification purposes, a photograph may be obtained after an offer of employment is made and accepted." [1]

[1] https://www.eeoc.gov/prohibited-employment-policiespractices

It is not illegal to ask for a photo. “Should not ask” is not the same as “cannot ask”.

Asking for a photo opens an employer to claims of discrimination, but it would still have to be proven, so the government is advising against it. But it may well be that in practice, the government will not be spending resources on trying to or be able to prove discrimination, even if a photo is required.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com