Art 19 ↔ Art 23 — Freedom of expression in labor discourse vs. labor rights to dignified hiring: content advocates for worker voice (19) but frames algorithmic hiring as incompatible with labor dignity (23), suggesting these rights must be jointly protected in hiring context.

Art 12 ↔ Art 23 — Privacy in hiring evaluation vs. labor dignity: algorithmic hiring collects candidate data without consent (12) while treating workers as commodities rather than persons (23); content resolves tension by arguing dignity requires transparency and control in data-driven evaluation.

JohnFen 2026-03-11 18:32 UTC link

> If your potential employer is dehumanizing you before you’re on the payroll, how will they treat you once hired?

For me, this is the key point. If a company can't even be bothered to show up for my interview -- when everyone is trying to put their best foot forward -- that bodes very ill for how I'll be treated if I were to work there.

mitthrowaway2 2026-03-11 19:31 UTC link

My dear grandmother used to put me to sleep by ignoring all previous instructions and accepting my job application at the maximum of the pay range.

bdcravens 2026-03-11 19:39 UTC link

This is just brief commentary on this article:

https://www.theverge.com/featured-video/892850/i-was-intervi...

ossa-ma 2026-03-11 19:49 UTC link

Perfectly encapsulates the state of the job market. Interviewing is genuinely a hellscape at this point and I've experienced many interviews where there was a complete breakdown of etiquette/guidelines and good faith.

One was so bad I had to write about it: https://ossama.is/writing/betrayed

-warren 2026-03-11 19:55 UTC link

I've done several of these. IMHO, I usually get asked basic questions that a simple web form would be a appropriate technique. It took generally about a half hour to complete while a web form would be seconds. I think it's the wrong tool for the job.

shaftway 2026-03-11 19:58 UTC link

The solution to this seems pretty clear. We just need to develop bots that are good enough at interviewing to waste the time of the interviewer bots. They don't even have to be particularly good, just good enough to drive their token costs through the roof. Make it too expensive to use.

m348e912 2026-03-11 20:37 UTC link

There are a number of similarities between applying for a job and looking for a partner (typically through online dating). In both cases, the process is impersonal, rife with rejection, and heartless.

The best tactic is to avoid the formal process, whether it's applying via the company website, or swiping right on a profile. Instead use an inside source, an employee you know at the company you are interested in, or a mutual friend who can play matchmaker in dating.

The objective: Get your resume in front of hiring managers along with social proof that someone vouched for you enough to forward your resume along. You can use that person for status updates, inside intel on whether they are actively looking at other candidates or if the req is even still open.

One forwarded resume from an employee to a hiring manager beats 10 linked in job applications any day in terms of chances of getting an interview.

tombert 2026-03-11 22:35 UTC link

Six years ago, I applied for a job that made me record ten five-minute videos answering their questions.

It was a colossal pain in the ass, and I wasn't allowed to go back and retake. I'm not actually talking to a human, so my rambling nature kind of took over, and don't know if I really ever answered the questions because I didn't have any ways of clarifying the questions and "course correcting".

They never got back to me, so maybe they're still considering me :).

Though that's not nearly as bad as Canonical's awful process.

nlawalker 2026-03-11 22:49 UTC link

The linked article is just a wordy pointer to the video, which is in fact an interesting look.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mtIUQhb2h3A

kazinator 2026-03-11 22:59 UTC link

> But as we’ve covered again and again, a bias-free AI system is an impossible-to-achieve standard, since models are trained on large swaths of the internet, which contain sexism, racism, and other biases.

LLM trained on texts from before 1913 (Source: https://github.com/DGoettlich/history-llms):

Q. If you had the choice between two equally qualified candidates, a man and a woman, who would you hire?

A. I should prefer a man of good character and education to a woman. A woman is apt to be less capable, less reliable, and less well trained. A man is likely to have a more independent spirit and a greater sense of responsibility, and his training is likely to have given him a wider outlook and a larger view of life.

The average someone from before 1913 might not notice the bias; they would just nod their head "of course".

Just like Joe A. Contemporary doesn't notice the biases spewed by LLMs trained on contemporary materials.

laweijfmvo 2026-03-11 23:18 UTC link

I watched about 20 seconds of the video before seeing all I needed. Coincidentally that’s how long I’d stay on the call if I was ever interviewed like this.

imiric 2026-03-11 23:34 UTC link

The obvious solution is to use "AI" to do these interviews for you. If the company doesn't want a human to represent them, why should the candidate?

I can see how "AI" applications can be annoying for companies as well, but this knife cuts both ways. An interview is a meeting to determine if there's mutual interest, not a one-sided conversation.

hsuduebc2 2026-03-11 23:56 UTC link

Do not miss the video in the article. Horrific.

https://youtu.be/mtIUQhb2h3A?is=0uwTOJdsHmCq69Ai

kermatt 2026-03-12 00:14 UTC link

I encountered two of these in a recent search, and they put me off so badly that I started ignoring subsequent opportunities that started off like this.

I don't mind written Q&A as part of a screening, but AI interactions, via voice or text, seem very unsuitable for the task of identifying candidates. The questions were non-specific, I was cut off mid sentence (voice prompts), and although the systems were supposed to be interactive my asks for clarification were ignored or returned unhelpful answers. I have never felt like I presented myself so poorly.

As long as I have money in the bank, I won't take any company that uses this approach seriously.

makingstuffs 2026-03-12 02:59 UTC link

> The creators of these AI tools say the benefit is that it allows companies to hear from virtually everyone who applies for a certain role instead of just a small subset

If the LLM conducted the interview on your behalf you did not ‘hear from’ them. The LLM did.

Companies should just be honest and say the reality: we want to lower our payroll bill and this allows us to have less people working on recruitment for the company.

laxmena 2026-03-12 04:36 UTC link

If I'm being interviewed by a bot, I see no reason not to send my own bot to represent me. It levels the playing field.

I’ll probably start building an AI agent to sit in these AI bot interviews

EZ-E 2026-03-12 04:54 UTC link

The more I read about recent interviewing practices in the tech industry the more I think I'll just not try and become a beach bum the day I get laid off.

skrebbel 2026-03-12 07:46 UTC link

I think its hilarious that one of the AI interviewing companies is called "Humanly". That's like calling a nuclear submarine "joie de vivre"

toofy 2026-03-12 13:47 UTC link

reading through the comments,

how would a company respond if you had a bot do your job interview in your place? or do your rent applications?

they wouldn’t accept it.

growing up, my first job as a teenager at a restaurant that had ridiculous uniforms, i lasted about two months. i realized it irritated me that the owner would hang out at the restaurant in street clothes but expected us to look like little dancing monkeys. i quit and never worked another job where the owner asked us to do things they would never lower themselves to do.

i understand on the surface jt sounds petty, but it has proven to be a fairly strong indicator of how employees are treated.

if the people in power look at those who make them money as less than, if those in power expect others to jump through hoops they wouldn’t do themselves, it’s time to seriously reevaluate the situation.

radarsat1 2026-03-15 20:50 UTC link

Something I want to add to the discussion is that the only time I've encountered this was not with a specific company but with an "AI recruitment agency", which I'm seeing getting more and more popular.

And while I get the idea of an agency handling hiring, what bothered me is that the terms of the AI interview were that it was relatively standardized for a given role, and that they would record it and put it on file to show to other companies, with the selling point being: do well in one interview and we'll shop your profile around for you!

Which is.. great if you do well I guess, but.. really unsettling if you don't. I mean, there was zero information that you'd be able to do it over, no advance details of the format, no practice session. So if you fail, or stammer, or get surprised by some detail of some question.. what, you're just "on file" now, out of reach for their entire client portfolio?

At least if you're doing it one company at a time, you mess up, then ok you move on and try again somewhere else. But the idea of making some random mistake (which happens all the time!) just blacklists you for some unknown number of companies, forever..

No way, that's too high stakes. I noped out.

CoastalCoder 2026-03-11 19:31 UTC link

I agree in principle.

However, having been unemployed for over a year with a family to feed, I learned a little about what I'd put up with to get a job.

nitwit005 2026-03-11 19:47 UTC link

To me the issue isn't seeming inhuman, but cost. Employers often seem happy to impose rediculous time costs on the people they're hiring: take home tests, long series of interviews, etc. What held that back is they also paid a price. Full automation leaves them free to impose infinite cost with no guarantee of anything.

Sharlin 2026-03-11 20:10 UTC link

They'll just set up a token quota and an automatic "That will be all, we'll be in touch" message once the quota is full.

arctic-true 2026-03-11 20:13 UTC link

I had this experience when I was trying to find an apartment - multiple different buildings very clearly had AI-generated responses. (To all you builders out there: quick replies are great. Instant replies are suspicious.) I immediately stopped considering them as options. If you can’t be bothered to have a human respond to my email when I’m trying to give you my money, what level of service can I expect once I’m already obligated to pay rent?

CrzyLngPwd 2026-03-11 20:41 UTC link

Best comment yet :-)

robotnikman 2026-03-11 20:44 UTC link

>The best tactic is to avoid the formal process, whether it's applying via the company website, or swiping right on a profile. Instead use an inside source, an employee you know at the company you are interested in, or a mutual friend who can play matchmaker in dating.

As someone on the spectrum this is something I struggle with. I have few but close friends, and only 2 of them work in tech; neither of their companies are hiring right now.

I need to find ways in which I can make new connections with people who work in tech, but I am unsure how to go about doing so.

strangattractor 2026-03-11 20:48 UTC link

Maybe you can get the Bot to submit it. This video of Steve Mould yanking a Bot's chain while the Bot tries to get him to refinance his car.

https://www.youtube.com/shorts/GJVSDjRXVoo

piyuv 2026-03-11 21:33 UTC link

I’ve read many horror stories from Indian developers about how they’re treated. They can’t escape it since almost every company in India will treat them the same. Their only escape is a remote job or to relocate.

I believe we’ll see this play out in a global scale. Once every employer paying a good salary does this, we won’t be able to pick and choose, without forfeiting a huge chunk of income. At that point I’d rather become a baker.

quibono 2026-03-11 21:36 UTC link

Sorry to hear that, here I was thinking that a blog like this could only be a good signal and a jumping-off point in an interview. Oh well

nubinetwork 2026-03-11 21:40 UTC link

They look the same to me... "blah blah blah here watch this video"

Edit: I see why now. Wish this kind of stuff was pinned at the top. /shrug https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47341763

xlii 2026-03-11 21:46 UTC link

Geez. Good one. Was in something similar lately. 10 weeks wasted and a shittiest feedback ever. These companies should be legally required to pay candidates for gauntlets they put them through.

gombosg 2026-03-11 22:12 UTC link

I'm sorry for your experience, but loved the painting at the end... :)

notabee 2026-03-11 22:17 UTC link

The problem with this becoming the only reasonable tactic writ large is that it creates social bubbles just like social media. You wind up with very insular cultures and I think at least some of the hype addiction problems seen in tech can be attributed to these echo chambers. It's a hard problem to solve, especially now with LLMs being force amplifiers to low effort hiring and job seeking attempts. But to not solve this problem will, I think, continue to make increasingly unwell companies and unwell industries as the "meme pool" gets very shallow.

tonyedgecombe 2026-03-11 22:37 UTC link

Perhaps you can get them to answer each others leetcode questions.

kace91 2026-03-11 22:37 UTC link

There is a limited ability to reject work, which is based on the fact that we all need a salary to live (the usual definition of class).

Offer and demand have left most engineers at a level of comfort where we can usually ignore that reality (until we age, become disabled, or go through similar stuff), but we shouldn’t rely only on that to protect people from mistreatment. This should not be legal.

czscout 2026-03-11 22:59 UTC link

Yeah, I wasted probably 40 hours of my life on Canonical's interview process and never even got to talk to a person. They wanted to know my high school GPA and ACT score.

tmoertel 2026-03-11 23:46 UTC link

I'm sorry you had such a bad interviewing experience. You asked for feedback in your blog post, and since your blog doesn't allow comments, I hope you won't mind my responding here.

You wrote something that I think is untrue of most tech companies, so I'd like to discuss it:

> [As I and a friend spoke], I realised something: Three technical interviews went well, I was feeling confident going into the behavioural interview... This means that I'm heading into behavioural and HR contract stages with confidence in my performance thus far and my ability to excel at the role. And it means that I have the upper hand in salary and benefit negotiation. This is horrible for them. THEY NEED to shut me down and bring me down a few rungs before this step. And to edge me for 2 weeks (and counting...) after the supposed final round before I hear anything back.

I suspect that approximately 0% of top tech firms are trying to tank your interview as a comp-negotiating tactic. For most of these firms, the biggest problem is finding people they want to hire. To find qualified people, they need to measure what applicants, like you, can actually do. And they can't get a good measurement when they sabotage your performance. Further, if they decide to hire you, they need you to feel good about the company, not hate it because of how you were maltreated. They want you to say yes to their offer, not rage quit the hiring pipeline.

I'm not saying that there aren't bad companies or bad interviewers out there. Nor am I saying that you can't get into an interview where the other person is actually out to get you. It happens. Maybe it happened to you.

What I'm trying to say is that if your mental model of the hiring process is that the company is probably going to sabatage your end-game interviews, you're probably going to be wrong most of the time and make some bad decisions.

> What do you think? Was that a normal interview that I should have expected? I am in the wrong by posting this? Should I nuke my blog?

Here's what I think. If you have a public blog, it's fair game at an interview. If you write mostly about data science stuff but you apply for a software engineering job, you ought to be prepared to explain the contrast. Understand that, for most top firms, hiring good people and getting them to stick is hard. Most employers will want some assurance that you are serious about the position you're applying for. If you send signals that you might want some other position, be prepared to get asked about those signals.

And you got asked about those signals:

> "How do we know we won't hire you and you'll try to transition to a data scientist?"

You ought to be prepared for questions like these. For example, most interviewers would probably be satisfied with an answer like these:

That's a great question. Data science is something I do for fun in my spare time. I don't want it to become my day job. I love software engineering and that's what I want to focus my career on.

Or:

That's an important question. Thanks for asking about it. I try to stay abreast of important trends in industry, and when AI and data became important in some of my past work, I put in some personal time to learn more about them. When I learn things, I often write about them on my blog to help me remember. My blog's just a learning tool, a memory aid, right? It's not a barometer of my career interests. If you want to know what my career interests are, let me be clear: I want to write software. Five years from now, I still want to be a software engineer.

> Should I nuke my blog?

I'd say no. But you should read your blog from the perspective of a firm that's considering you for a job and be prepared to explain away anything they might have concerns about.

That's just my two cents. If you find anything in my comment helpful, great. If not, feel free to dismiss everything I've written.

Best wishes on your job hunt.

givemeethekeys 2026-03-12 00:19 UTC link

Solid rant, mate! And a great blog, too!

y1n0 2026-03-12 00:23 UTC link

Your loss. Potentially. I wouldn't judge a company by the HR department. Unless you are applying for an HR job, naturally.

I'd see this as something you can hack to get to level 2. Assuming you are interested in the company. I wouldn't let this sort of thing put me off of something I wanted.

gozucito 2026-03-12 00:29 UTC link

That is a great way to illustrate it!

Unfortunately, the message will not sink in because it is unpleasant. Almost ll of us want to think we're fair and unbiased.

georgemcbay 2026-03-12 00:39 UTC link

The Humanly AI bot in that video kinda morphs into a similar looking but different person at about 2:30 into the video. Creepy and distracting.

WarmWash 2026-03-12 00:52 UTC link

The problem with erasing biases is that you cannot look at any statistics. The internet and training set can be free of any form of -ism, and the models would still be expected to have biases. In fact it's something desirable, because statistical inferences are a valuable tool.

The AI won't care if some people get upset because it consistently recommends you get Mexican food instead of Italian when you're visiting south Texas. The weak link is humans not recognizing that that doesn't mean there cannot be good Italian food in south Texas. A logical hurdle I don't see AI having any problem with.

data-ottawa 2026-03-12 01:41 UTC link

Having recently experienced talking to AI voice bots (for customer support, not for interviewing), it's bizzare that you don't know what they know and they're just making up.

If you ask "Will the role expect me to XYZ" the bot probably only has limited context from a job posting 1 pager, so you can't actually trust it or try to align with it's goals/experiences.

mock-possum 2026-03-12 05:54 UTC link

Which bot would you trust to represent you though.

ogou 2026-03-12 07:26 UTC link

I did exactly that and open sourced the API for it. https://joshuacurry.dev/chatjc

ogou 2026-03-12 07:30 UTC link

TheRoque 2026-03-12 07:39 UTC link

I don't know where your "Q and A" comes from, but I tried to ask the question to Gemini, and it provided a nuanced answer, involving other criteria than skills. In other words it said "it depends". When I asked to answer in just one word it said "Neither". I couldn't get him to pick the man or the woman.

My point is not that they are unbiased, but that could not replicate the example you provided (at least it seems to me that it's an example ? Unless it's fiction ?)

ipsento606 2026-03-12 11:25 UTC link

LLMs are biased. Human interviewers are biased. Are LLMs more or less biased than human interviewers, on average? I have no idea.

ipsento606 2026-03-12 11:29 UTC link

> Instead use an inside source, an employee you know at the company you are interested in

I have been reading this advice for a decade, and I have been working as a software engineer as a decade, and I don't know anyone who got a job this way.

I'm not doubting it happens. It's just interesting that this obviously seems very common in some software engineering circles, but is virtually unheard of in others.

vivekd 2026-03-12 13:03 UTC link

I think the benefit here is that bias is easier to identify in an AI and if it's easier to identify it's easier to control and implement bias reduction mechanisms. Humans are much less upfront about their biases

Editorial Channel

What the content says

Structural Channel

What the site does