We’re definitely not the first to realise there’s something seriously wrong with how hiring and job-seeking works today. Zero-cost communication and LLMs have created so much noise that good candidates can’t get heard, and it becomes all too tempting to game the system with keywords and prompt-hacking.
In fact we discovered that 70% of early stage AI startups don't post their jobs on LinkedIn. Instead, many founders hire exclusively within their network, which works at the start but doesn’t scale.
We thought a lot about this problem, and pivoted through a few ideas including an AI voice agent recruiter. We even spent some time trying to be conventional tech recruiters to better understand the problem space.
And in the end we built...a job board.
But we think there are a few things that make ours different:
- We decided to not put barriers between the user and the data. You can search, filter or browse however you like from the minute you sign up. Zero onboarding
- We wanted to nail one niche, so we focused on surfacing opportunities at early-stage AI companies (over 30,000 jobs at 24,000 companies)
- You can navigate it using keyboard shortcuts!
- We built a voice agent, Nell, who conducts a technical recruiter call with you through your browser and immediately finds matches, the way a well-connected friend who knows you well would
- When you tell us you’re interested in a role, we make a best effort to connect you to founders directly, along with your profile, so no cover letters, no pointless forms
- We enriched jobs data with investor-grade intelligence - you can look at same data that VCs use to decide whether a startup is worth joining or not
Give it a try and let us know what you think: https://teeming.ai
I ended up pivoting to just having a free daily remote jobs email for engineers (among other roles) https://bloomberry.com/blog/remote-jobs/
Compare that to an existing service, where they only have to do the last part, and are dividing that cost by the millions of jobseekers that the existing solutions already reach.
The reason why is because they possess significant competitive advantages.
Im actually working on something in this space and am building out competitive advantages with government backing that'll make LinkedIn and Indeed an inferior offering in my country.
If youre going to enter a market with established incumbents, you wont go very far without a lot of strategic-thinking.
There's also way too much barrier to entry here, signing up, especially with Google is a big ask. I also bounced at that step. A demo or video of the product could help if you don't want anonymous access.
With regard to job posting accuracy - absolutely this is a problem. Normalising what different job descriptions actually _mean_ is one of the key challenges we want to solve.
4.8/5 Satisfied
113 reviews
≤2h average response time
98.7% on-time delivery rate
US $470,000+
474 orders
This is good news, as I wasn't expecting to move so fast via Teeming.ai, and it worked! Too bad that this time I was the one refusing to continue instead, although the platformed proved it's success and I'm going to use it again, even for fractional work opportunities.
"Continue with Google"
Aside from requiring a login - Google login no less to see the job description.
If you really want to keep the login then maybe a message like we won't spam email you unless asked and only want your to log in to protect against bots would help.
Rolling your own user account system is not that hard.
Click "I'm an engineer" to try to search for jobs to see if there's anything interesting. Get a sign up page.
Click "I'm hiring". Get presented with an email harvesting page.
Yeah no, I won't be looking any further. There's nothing here to suggest this sucks less than any other jobs site, where at least I can peruse the JD before having to give away my personal details.
Unless you tell me you have exclusive roles, it doesn't give me much initial trust.
Edit: the voting ring of comments / AI comments make the whole thing even more disgusting.
The data and filtering feel solid, found navigating the table pretty easy. Not in love with the agent, maybe add multiple threads or preserve context between sessions. Needs a bit of polish here and there with UX still.
Definitely gonna take another look when I’m next job-hunting as it looks like it's going to be a time saver. Good job!
Agent is definitely an area I'm looking to improve with persistence and make it truly personalised.
(as gus_massa pointed out, it's a no-no on HN to do voting rings or have booster comments - this is in both the guidelines https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and the FAQ https://news.ycombinator.com/newsfaq.html
but we do know that in many cases it's unintentional)
It's against HN's rules to do promotional voting and/or commenting. We want voting and discussion to happen because people are randomly curious—not because they or a friend have something to promote. This is in both the guidelines (https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html) and the FAQ (https://news.ycombinator.com/newsfaq.html).
However, there are different degrees of breaking this rule. For simplicity, I'll call them A and B. There are more than two of these categories, but let's keep it simple.
Degree A: OP is clueless about the culture and rules of HN. Out of enthusiasm, they tell their friends (or project community) "hey, I posted <link> to Hacker News". Friends are even more clueless but want to help OP so they come to HN and and create new accounts to upvote and post things like "Wow this is really cool! I think this is really cool! Woo hoo OP!!"
Degree B: OP knows perfectly well that HN doesn't allow voting rings or booster comments, but want some sweet sweet frontpage juice for their thing. So they organize and make a bunch of accounts (or co-ordinate a bunch of existing ones) to upvote and/or comment but also hide their tracks.
A is naive. B is abusive.
A is venial. B is cardinal. A = misdemeanor, B = felony.
A means well, but is hapless and obvious. B knows what they're doing and think they can get away with it.
A is the juvenile delinquent that responds to kindness and explanation. B is the hardened criminal that learns nothing but to game the system better next time.
B is an obvious ban. A, maybe not. If their work is good and they seem like they (and their friends) might become good community members with enough guidance, then they're welcome—even though the rules are the rules.
Going lenient on A would be a bad idea if HN were vulnerable to naive voting rings; but we've been writing software for many years to catch those. The A cases are so naive that after a few years we realized that we were better off going easy on them. They're not the abusers we need to worry about! and often they turn into good citizens.
> Don't solicit upvotes, comments, or submissions. Users should vote and comment when they run across something they personally find interesting—not for promotion.
Job hunting is a serious chore and having good filtering and UI really matters in such a diverse industry, big love for the platform!
https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
"Be respectful. [...] Don't be gratuitously negative."
https://news.ycombinator.com/showhn.html
(Edit: originally the parent comment just said "Meh I dont see this going very far" without the second sentence.)
My only feedback is that it would be nice to have a view where you can see more of the job description at a glance. Right now you have to click in to each role to get information about the job.
Which additional pieces of job information do you think we should surface before clicking?