Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
AI Businesses

AI Is Forcing the Return of the In-Person Job Interview (msn.com) 49

Posted by msmash from the how-about-that dept.
Google, Cisco, and McKinsey have reintroduced in-person interviews to combat AI-assisted cheating in virtual technical assessments. Coda Search/Staffing reports client requests for face-to-face meetings has surged to 30% this year from 5% in 2024.

A Gartner survey of 3,000 job seekers found 6% admitted to interview fraud including having someone else stand in for them, while the FBI has warned of thousands of North Korean nationals using false identities to secure remote positions at U.S. technology companies. Google CEO Sundar Pichai confirmed in June the company now requires at least one in-person round for certain roles to verify candidates possess genuine coding skills.

AI Is Forcing the Return of the In-Person Job Interview More | Reply

AI Is Forcing the Return of the In-Person Job Interview

Comments Filter:

  • Good (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Luckyo ( 1726890 ) on Tuesday August 12, 2025 @03:35PM (#65585478)

    Frankly, face to face meeting reveals a lot about people. You shouldn't hire or get hired without meeting your future employee/boss face to face and having a conversation.

    • Re: (Score:2, Informative)

      by registrations_suck ( 1075251 )

      Fuck that.

      Thanks.

  • And have an actual HR person look at your resume and contact you to set-up the interview, rather than AI doing it for them?

    • Can we do away with HR being the first call and skip right to speaking with an engineer? They can do a much better job of determining if a candidate is bullshitting.

      • Speaking as the engineer who would have to go through all the resumes to find someone, no thanks. I have actual work to do. HR exists so that the people doing the engineering or whatever do not have to waste time talking to the hundreds of unqualified applicants. I have been there. We were hiring contractors as technicians through a temp company. Whenever we had position, they would just send all the resumes of people who had a background in the general field and we had to go through them in the hopes
      • Generally the HR 1st call interview is a filter for if the person is going to be a "fit" for company culture. Does the person present themselves well, or are they an unkempt slob?

    • This. Funny how it's "interview fraud" to use AI on an interview assignment, but it isn't hiring fraud to use AI (and glorified grep scripts) to eliminate candidates and perform early interview rounds, or to advertise jobs as remote when they're hybrid at best, or to post jobs with requirements for skills or credentials that are in no way needed to do the job. It conveniently also isn't any kind of "fraud" to post ghost jobs on the regular.

  • Fail to admit lies was always a problem (Score:5, Insightful)

    by gurps_npc ( 621217 ) on Tuesday August 12, 2025 @03:55PM (#65585524) Homepage

    When I was a kid, job interviews were reasonable.

    HR started doing stupid crap, thinking they could get better recruits.
    10 exp req. for entry level jobs - in fields that were 5 years old.
    Asking people to have skills equivalent to Senior positions for Junior positions.
    Not stating salaries estimates and asking people how much they would work for.
    Salary below market rates.

    Eventually they find someone willing to SAY they qualify and will work for that salary.

    Wondering why they had massive turnover with horrendous, underqualified employees.

    Never ever realized that they had instead selected for the most deceitful scum in the world, willing to say anything to get a job.

    This has been going on for decades. A war between scumbag HRs with ridiculous demands and lying bastards.

    I am surprised any honest people get jobs.

    The way to get the best people is to put in higher pay than your competition with lower experience requirements than standard. Then find the guys that can LEARN to do the job, rather than already know how.

    • They don't want to hire you. They want to hire an H1B. Somebody who will work longer hours for less pay and who is younger. Somebody who has had recent training paid for by somebody else in the exact technology or product they want to hire for. And somebody they can discard like an old tissue when they are done with them.

      The social contract is breaking down. We are going to see a fuck ton of violence.

      I think the problem is there's a bunch of dumb people over the age of 50 who think that's going to b

      • "They don't want to hire you. They want to hire an H1B."

        That's mostly just a racist trope. Outside of a few well-known big companies that do lots of H1B hires, most of the time HR is gunning for their friend or some other associate to get hired. It's rarely a Visa holder HR is fighting for.

        • Do you even understand what you are saying? Please explain what a "racist trope" is and how does it makes any sense in your idiotic statement?

          • If you don't understand that "Furriners are coming to take your job away because they'll work for a crust of bread" is a racist trope, I'm not sure if I can explain it to you.

            • Large corporations are actively importing them to take our jobs. There's a huge difference there. These aren't people who are the tired masses these are the middle class of India and Eastern Europe. And our betters, our kings are actively importing them for the express purpose of taking our jobs and you being a little shit are dropping racism into the conversation to derail it because you think that's fun.

              And this is why the human race is going to die. Instead of actually solving the problems we face li
          • And it worked too. This is why we are all going to lose our jobs. Absolutely no one is fighting for us. And that very much includes the racists.

            What we should be doing is transitioning from a competitive society to a cooperative one so that it no longer matters if we keep bringing an immigrants. But it is extremely hard to get away from the programming when you were a kid that told you competition is a universal good.

            So you have a cognitive dissonance between what you were told when you were a littl

            • When you die of old age (if overdosing doesn't do it first) in a few years, they'll give you the cheapest headstone money can buy, and then engrave it with the world's biggest complaint form. The subject will read "Dey took er jerbs!" The various fields will mention AI, indians, H1-B, bitcoin, gratuitously repeated use of the word "corporations", and allusions to that recurring nightmare you keep having, namely this one:

              https://youtu.be/_B9nJiKq9N8 [youtu.be]

          • That's just someone trying (and failing) to be all-inclusive, considering nobody (that I've seen so far) had mentioned race.
            For once... I do agree with you.
            The jobs that "immigrants" take could easily be done by US citizens... I'm not saying block everyone forever, just look for people locally or whatever before hiring every H1B that comes across the desk.

            reanjr is saying that all of the conversation up to their comment is anti other nationalities... as if the conversation is poised against any other nation

        • I frankly do not care which country the people my jobs are being given to I don't want my jobs to be given away.

          Now I would like very much to transition from a competitive society to a cooperative one so that I don't have to fight for the right to live via jobs. But that's not the world I live in and to be blunt practically nobody here wants to make that transition. We were taught when we were kids competition good and that's not something we are going to let go easily if at all.

          So I am basically fi

      • Exactly!

        H1B's (does that need the apostrophe?) are cheap labor... sure, they're paid the going rate for the work they do, and maybe even benefits... but, the "company" doesn't have to hire them full-time, and can have them work 12+ hours while they pay them the same as the neighboring cubicle, where that guy works 8 hours and makes the same.

        I would have no problem working on a farm for $300 a week... if there was a farm near by that I could get to.

      • You know what's funny?

        I read this post, and I thought, "I bet I know who posted this." I look, and sure enough, I was right (;

        You know what's even funnier? I know exactly one user name on here besides mine. And I associate that name with "dumbest shit posted on Slashdot".

        I wonder if it is all a coincidence.

    • Sometimes those deceitful scum get embedded within an organization and parasitize their way to the top. This tempts even people who wouldn't normally lie to lie because they need to feed their families. The fairest system I can think of is to have an in-person exam (90%) + interview (10%) .. dont even ask or care about past experience.

  • For a truly-remote job that isn't "high stakes," partnering with an exisitng identity-verification firm like Greenhouse is doing with Clear (see article), make sense. One step up from that would be requiring a remote interview to be done in a "vetted location" like a recognized test-taking center.

    Once you get to "high stakes" situations - and each company gets to decide what "high stakes" means in this context - an in-person interview becomes a must.

    Even if it's not "a must" from a "cheating" perspective,

  • Ask them to modify their code live (Score:3)

    by LoneBoco ( 701026 ) on Tuesday August 12, 2025 @04:09PM (#65585564)

    We provide a technical test in our interview process and we got all sorts of neat submissions but it always falls apart when we ask them to make changes live. I personally don't care much about somebody using an LLM if they can demonstrate that they are skilled enough without using one, and if they can demonstrate that they won't trust a result. In fact, at this point we ask about AI usage and have applicants ask it questions that we know will give wrong answers just to see if they can identify the problem and figure out how to resolve it.

    • Interesting, I wonder if any of that is because people submit code they wrote and are proud of, but haven't deeply read through in a while. They assume it's like a portfolio that somebody might be tasked to look at ahead of time but not a discussion piece during the interview. I can see myself being made a fool of that way.

      • It's not even that. It's a simple web page FizzBuzz test (print the numbers 1-100 on a web page when you click a button and do FizzBuzz-like things). We give them a day to do it and tell them that we will review what they write in the technical interview. People create elaborate solutions to impress, but I've noticed certain... trends in how they design it. And after the review, when we ask them to make it so the FizzBuzz factors are user editable on the web page, things always end up falling apart.

  • Isn't that what they want? (Score:3)

    by thegreatemu ( 1457577 ) on Tuesday August 12, 2025 @04:25PM (#65585614)
    So on the one hand, they want everyone to leverage AI as much as possible to boost productivity and efficiency in their daily jobs. Which means that any task that can be done better or faster by an AI should, nay, must be. So if they are asking interview questions that can be done by AI, they should immediately reject candidates who DON'T use AI for those tasks. What am I missing here?

  • Not only will applicants have to show up live without an AI to help them, but interviews will have to be done by live people and not AIs as well.

    And next week, we'll see a story about people hiring ringers to interview for them.

    Again.

    • Re: (Score:1, Offtopic)

      by ambrandt12 ( 6486220 )

      Ringers?
      You mean "advocates"?

      That's how a lot of them get their drivers licenses and apartments and other benefits (GA, insurance, food stamps)... the "advocate" knows how to fill out all the paperwork to maximize the benefits for 'their client', then the client has five people living with them so it doesn't cost anyone too much to have a place to sleep, and they send as much money as possible back to their wife and kids and extended family.
      I know... I've seen this firsthand (before you try to say "it's all

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by taustin ( 171655 )

        No, I mean ringers [askamanager.org]. An advocate doesn't lie about who they are, claiming to be who they represent.

        • No... the "advocate" doesn't lie about shit... they just "pad" the paperwork so their client gets everything possible.
          That is the nature of the immigration system these days.
          If you can show me articles that disprove what I said, I'll believe you... they better be more than FOX or CNN... I want multiple sources!

          • Re: (Score:2)

            by taustin ( 171655 )

            You might try participating in the same conversation as everyone else in the future. You'll look less clueless that way. Or maybe you won't, no matter what you do.

  • Leet code interviews (Score:4, Insightful)

    by akw0088 ( 7073305 ) on Tuesday August 12, 2025 @05:29PM (#65585824)
    I think they should really stop with the whole quiz/leet code style interviews. Memorizing the longest common sub sequence solution does not make you a better programmer. The fact that they expect you to spend two to three weeks cramming for algorithm questions is a bad practice. While they hire non-engineers without anything similar at all

Slashdot Top Deals

Nobody's gonna believe that computers are intelligent until they start coming in late and lying about it.

Close