As someone currently interviewing for a new job, this totally terrifies me. There is no proof their machine’s logic actually works, that it’s doing a better job than human interviewers, but in this day and age, it’s a lot easier to allow a machine to do their dirty work.
I used to use a tactic of asking about an interviewee’s personal use of computers, podcasts, magazines, media in general. I reasoned that people who liked to learn, people like me, people driven to understand how new technology worked, are way more valuable than those who don’t. But that turns out to be a very limited viewpoint. Not everyone useful is a great employee. You can’t just turn down everyone who isn’t the best. There aren’t that many great potential employees out there. You need a mix of talent.
Some people better at communicating, and others are better at technical skills. Both are valuable. A good team has a mix. So this mechanical solution just seems inadequate, at best, and irresponsible, at worst. But that seems to be the society we’re headed towards. China has their national social media database to rank who’s a loyal, trustworthy citizen, so the USA has to develop their own.
AC Global Risk claims to be able to determine your level of “risk” as an employee or an asylum-seeker based not on what you say, but how you say it.