What's AI Native Software?
Research by Alexander Vilinskyy
If you look around your computer, most of apps are not ready for AI, even if they have "ai features" installed in them. The amount of purple stars, blue gradients and forever loading text of generic bullet points has flooded our interfaces without checking if it's what we need all along.
Large Brushstrokes
- What is a job?
- How do people get job?
- What happens at workplace?
- What is a source of anxiety?
- What is a source of ideas?
Do we need more text?
Text is one of the ways to translate thinking from one mind to another. Same with pictures. Books allowed us to do it on bigger scales, Internet allowed us to do it on planetary scale. And I'm all for this motion to continue. But
Educating the workforce of the future
Education is not all, there should be tool for easier thing.
It’s not about Gen-Z, it’s about human incentives (nature vs. Fashion)
Recruiters are incentivised to make process more complex.
Economic incentive for recruiter
If you feel like you would want to make the hiring process absolutely custom, you feel correct — because "it is what it is"
What if we would trade the information between candidate and recruiter? Salary expectation for your teammates. Contact to Manager for preferences.
You are punished for applying
There are many "first type" solutions. For example:
1. What if we would generate job description in ChatGPT?
2. What if we would ask candidates to record video answers?
3. What if we're going to create super quiz, which will sort people in good and bad?
Modern processes are giving birth to many unreasonable practices. For example hiring manager might say "I know every candidate is trying to present their best view, so I try to test them in different questions to see where they will crumble". Listening to this answer made me feel two things:
1. Yes, reasonable, it would give a good sign.
2. Wait... again, why do we need this? Is this poijnt of failure actually gives us better decision? Do we have data point on how this type of candidate lasts longer? Or did we convince ourselves that we need to keep this social dynamics to establish hierarchy? (Candidate is my "bitch" and I will let them know.)
And then you start thinking, how come recruiters are getting to deal with 2000 candidates in their waiting lists? Is it because "market is like this" or is it because the job descriptions are so vague, that people don't feel any filtering and want to apply everywhere? Therefore, someone needs to manage unreasonably big funnel.
Yes, it's true, you have to apply to jobs, that are higher than your skillset in order to grow. But there should also be reasonable delta. It would be nice to show it.
One of the most popular comments I heard is that by NOT TALKING ABOUT EXITS AND PRIORITIES WE CAN PRESERVE CANDIDATES FROM LEAVING.
WAIT... HOW?
Current jobs are basically incentivising everyone to:
1. Go actively to other interviews
2. Never ever reveal that you are having interviews, you're most loyal person to the company
3. Until you pull the trigger last moment and you leave.
4. Faking AI by putting real people behind it?
Because talking about it makes everyone at risk.
"But how would you make people not leave if they go interview left and right?"
Well, it seems like such a weird question. Let me provide you with strange answer: by making sure you're good employer and they don't want to leave you ... volunteerily. It's like not saying your partner they can divorce you. What would be reasonable thing to do?
What if we would use one application to streamline the whole operation? Nick is working one one solution, where you can pass interview or portfolio interview once and then you will be able to reuse the highlights from it to apply to other jobs or present yourself. Which at some point counters the point I did before, but it's trying to solve it from another angle.
How would Instant Matching look like?
Can we decrease hiring speed for IC from 3 months to 3 weeks? Or even 3 days?
Candidates are looking for jobs when they are in need (how to make job positions before the actual need)
What is collaborative environment?
Can we decrease hiring speed for IC from 3 months to 3 weeks? Or even 3 days?
Digital transformation is not happening
Too many hoops to jump through
Automation is not there
Inspirations:
1. Book "Don't Get a Job,... Make a Job"
2. Carly, Valerie, Harrit, Magdalena, Kelly, Stan, Renn,
Ways to make job openings more widely discussed:
### Introduction
Future of work probably has more ties, than you think — how AI impacts small economies, how do we perceive value and art, how do companies speak with governments etc. I will miss some of the points, but I want to deep dive into the nature of jobs and what forces are shaping it currently. This research is an introduction to my own head and what kind of things I'm planning to build.
#### What is a Job?
A job is traditionally seen as a structured form of employment where individuals exchange their skills and time for compensation. However, in today's dynamic world, the lines between jobs, freelance work, and agency retainers are increasingly blurred. If the price, an output and response time are the same — what differentiates a job from a long-term freelance contract or an agency retainer? The location of a person dictates your preference then?
#### If it's a job in broad sense, how do people (and other entities are getting it?
For job to happen, there should be a demand. And job opening is happening way-way-way later, than demand has been formed. Or so I thought. Later I found out I was wrong. And many times company hire people not after the formed demand, but during unformed demand. Which in my opinion, makes the process even more complex. How can you define and evaluate supply without knowing what your demands are?
Calibrating...
The process of securing a job has become increasingly complex. Recruiters often add layers to the hiring process, making it more convoluted. This complexity serves their economic incentives — self preservation goals, because more intricate process requires more of their involvement. The more steps and hoops candidates must jump through, the more indispensable recruiters become.
Workplaces are evolving too. But not always in ways that reduce anxiety or foster creativity. The traditional hierarchical structures and rigid processes often stifle innovation and create unnecessary stress. For instance, hiring managers may test candidates with the intent of finding their breaking points, which raises questions about the efficacy and humanity of such practices. Education alone is not enough. There must be tools and systems in place to simplify the transition from learning to working. It's not just about Gen-Z; it's about understanding human incentives and creating environments that align with natural motivations rather than transient trends.
Recruiters are incentivized to complicate the hiring process. The more complex the process, the more candidates they can manage, and the more indispensable they become. This often leads to practices that are counterproductive, such as vague job descriptions that result in an overwhelming number of applicants.
#### Punished for Applying
Modern hiring processes often punish candidates for applying. For example:
1. Generating job descriptions using AI like ChatGPT.
2. Asking candidates to record video answers.
3. Creating extensive quizzes to sort candidates.These practices can be unreasonable and counterproductive. Hiring managers may believe that testing candidates rigorously will reveal their true capabilities, but this approach can be flawed. It raises the question: do these tests actually lead to better hiring decisions, or do they simply reinforce existing hierarchies?
### The Information Exchange
What if we could trade information between candidates and recruiters more transparently? For instance, sharing salary expectations or manager preferences could streamline the process and make it more efficient.
### The Incentive to Leave
Current job structures often incentivize employees to seek other opportunities secretly. The fear of discussing exits and priorities leads to a culture where employees are constantly on the lookout for new jobs, but never openly discuss it. This secrecy is counterproductive and creates a cycle of mistrust.
#### A New Approach
What if we could use a single application to streamline the entire hiring process? Imagine a solution where candidates could pass an interview or portfolio review once and reuse the highlights for multiple applications. This could significantly reduce the time and effort involved in job hunting.
### Instant Matching
Can we reduce the hiring time for individual contributors from three months to three weeks, or even three days? Candidates often look for jobs when they are in immediate need. Creating job positions before the actual need arises could be a game-changer.
What happens at the jobs then? Are we good there?
#### Collaborative Environments
A collaborative environment is essential for the future of work. Digital transformation and automation are key, but they are not happening fast enough. Too many hoops and outdated processes hinder progress.
#### People translators.
We move data between apps, because they can't speak.
### Inspirations
1. **Book**: "Don't Get a Job,... Make a Job"
2. **People**: Carly, Valerie, Harrit, Magdalena, Kelly, Stan, Renn
### Conclusion
The future of work is a complex and evolving landscape. By addressing the inefficiencies in the hiring process, fostering transparent communication, and embracing digital transformation, we can create a more dynamic and fulfilling work environment. The key is to challenge the status quo and fight the mentality of "it is what it is."
### Ways to Make Job Openings More Widely Discussed
- Encourage open discussions about job priorities and exits.
- Simplify job descriptions to attract the right candidates.
- Use technology to streamline the hiring process and reduce unnecessary steps.By rethinking our approach to work and hiring, we can build a future that is more aligned with human incentives and less constrained by outdated practices.
