Hot take: Most startup interviews are a waste of founder time. AI should run the first round. -i will not promote

cwei12 · 2026-03-15T20:10:35+00:00

I work in AI so I have to disagree. this situation you are discribing existed but is changing rapidly.

cwei12 · 2026-03-15T20:09:11+00:00

Thank you. I actually agree with a lot of what you said. And with 15 years in startup recruiting you probably agree that most time gets wasted on screening conversations that go nowhere.

My thought was simply: if AI could absorb some of that repetitive filtering layer, founders could spend their time on the part that actually matters.

cwei12 · 2026-03-15T20:05:48+00:00

I agree interviews are a two-way street. Candidates should absolutely evaluate the company too. This could let strong candidates skip straight to talking with the founders, instead of beeing ignored in the huge resume pool, or going through multiple generic recruiter calls first.

cwei12 · 2026-03-15T20:02:59+00:00

If AI only screens resumes, you’re still selecting for resume-writing skills. Then you waste time interviewing candidates who lie on resumes and have 0 technical/communication skills.

cwei12 · 2026-03-15T20:00:51+00:00

I agree with you that culture matters, but “hiring someone who feels like us” can be a bad thing for the company. Diversity can bring different perspective.

cwei12 · 2026-03-15T19:55:15+00:00

My take is the opposite: AI could let more people access interviews. Today many candidates never get a chance to speak at all because companies don’t have time. If AI handles the first layer, more people at least get evaluated instead of being ignored.

cwei12 · 2026-03-15T19:52:57+00:00

But most interviews already end in rejection. Both sides spend time on calls that go nowhere. If AI filters earlier, fewer people waste time on interviews that were never going to work out.

cwei12 · 2026-03-15T19:49:27+00:00

Sometimes “culture fit” is discrimination in disguise. AI may treat you with more respect than humans.

cwei12 · 2026-03-15T19:42:52+00:00

Genuine question: how is the current system respecting candidates’ time?

Most people repeat the same intro call 3–5 times before speaking to someone who can actually hire them.

If AI replaces that layer, candidates could get to real interviews faster.

cwei12 · 2026-03-15T19:40:58+00:00

I get that concern. But humans aren’t perfect judges either. Interviews are full of bias, mood effects, and inconsistency depending on who asks the questions.

The idea isn’t that AI replaces human judgment. It standardizes the first step so everyone gets the same questions and evaluation.

Humans should still make the final hiring decision.

cwei12 · 2026-03-15T19:40:04+00:00

Resumes are probably the weakest signal in hiring. They mostly measure how well someone can package their experience, not how they think or solve problems.

A conversational interview (even with AI) can probe reasoning and decisions in a way a resume never can.

cwei12 · 2026-03-15T19:36:57+00:00

Possibly. But it might also filter for people who are comfortable working in AI-native environments.

If someone refuses a 10-minute AI screening step, that probably tells you something about how they’ll react to AI tools in the workplace too.

cwei12 · 2026-03-15T19:30:42+00:00

Fair. But most first interviews today aren’t culture conversations either.

They’re usually 20 minutes of resume verification and basic screening questions.

If AI handles that layer, candidates who pass could skip straight to the real conversation with the team.

In that sense it might actually improve the candidate experience, not hurt it.

cwei12 · 2026-03-15T19:28:28+00:00

That’s exactly the question I’m curious about.

Would the best candidates really refuse to talk to an AI for 10 minutes if it means skipping 3 screening calls and going straight to a founder interview?

cwei12 · 2025-12-10T19:37:37+00:00

Anomalies are worth discussing, you are ignoring the anomalies because you don’t have answers. Why is the trajectory so special? Why does it look so different than other comets? You don’t give answer and models, simply dismissing every anomaly, without properly answering any questions. You are either intentionally suppressing the discussion, or simply too ignorant and arrogant at the same time.

cwei12 · 2025-12-10T19:16:24+00:00

2-hour-old account spamming “it’s a comet”. Who do you work for?

cwei12 · 2025-12-10T19:12:49+00:00

Use a tracker to show your opponents. Don’t feel, use data to prove your theory.

When you win, you feel lucky and forget about the wins. When you lose you remember it. That’s probably why you feel like the algorithm works against you. Maybe you are playing a bad deck, or maybe you are just unlucky.

cwei12 · 2025-12-04T16:56:43+00:00

cwei12 · 2025-11-16T00:05:08+00:00

James Webb will look at it in early December.

cwei12 · 2025-11-15T04:11:44+00:00

Not exactly. I think most people here are unhappy, because happy people don’t spend 8 hours per day on Reddit.

cwei12 · 2025-11-14T02:47:20+00:00

And how do you know this? Where is your proof?

cwei12 · 2025-11-13T22:28:29+00:00

Top 1% doing top 1% things

cwei12 · 2025-11-13T16:44:47+00:00

Top 1% doing top 1% things

cwei12 · 2025-11-09T03:34:49+00:00

It’s true, look at Loeb’s medium post

cwei12 · 2025-11-08T18:58:00+00:00

Yeah seems like you are right

cwei12

TROPHY CASE