The interview process being broken doesn’t mean the job is broken/useless. It’s shitty IMO that Columbia university wants to take “disciplinary action” for exposing useless interviewing practices. It would’ve been better to tell Roy about ethics and say “If you want to do this kind of stuff, that’s fine, but here’s the way to do it. In fact you can continue doing this at our university and make a career out of it. Let’s talk.”

And Amazon’s reaction is also dumb (as expected). They should instead be hiring this dude to improve their interviewing practices by letting him build internal tooling to try and defeat the interviewing process. Of course they won’t do this because there is a certain prestige in getting a FAANG job. Keeping recruiting costs low but interest high with a high rejection rate is the goal for recruiting.

I’m not quite sure there’s a winner in this triangle, except those outside it: this might force companies to change their recruitment practices. My guess is that there will be a lot of resistance first and more money will be spent on “fraud detection” than actual improvements. It will be a cat and mouse game with probably the companies losing, but at least some C-suite bastard will get rich selling the fraud detection solution 🤷

Anti Commercial-AI license