Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Ask HN: How do you deal with obvious AI assistant usage in interviews

news.ycombinator.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–26 of 26 posts

Re: Ask HN: How do you deal with obvious AI assistant usage in interviews

#21

Post by stackdestroyer »

Jemaclus wrote: post #16

I'll go the opposite direction: if your Sr Release Engineer will use AI assistants (Claude Code, etc) on the job, let them use it in the interview. The best interviews test critical thinking and problem-solving, not recall. AI makes generating solutions easier, but it also makes validating those solutions harder. That validation skill is what _actually_ matters now. Focus on that. "How do you validate that your solut…

I only end up with absurd questions if I am nearly positive the candidate is using one of these tools. I was proven right too - I asked a candidate if he'd ever chopped down a tree with an axe. He said no immediately, and then proceeded to give me a solid woodsmans explanation for how to do just that. I stand by what I did.

Re: Ask HN: How do you deal with obvious AI assistant usage in interviews

#22

Post by stackdestroyer »

bigyabai wrote: post #3

Are you telling them upfront that AI usage is forbidden? If not it's fair game.

I haven't said anything about use of AI during the interview. However, the difference between using an AI tool like Claude or Cursor to help you reason about and develop a solution to a problem, and using something like ParakeetAI to listen to your call and provide you a script to speak is huge - it completely removes the thinking from the interaction. You can tell by how the candidate doesn't pause to contemplate the question, and from the overly polished answers delivered.

Since I'm the hiring manager, I'm looking for someone who is being genuine in the interview, and the AI cheaterware is a bridge too far, especially since it wasn't intended to be deeply technical - why cheat on a behavioral screen? You AI'd your way into the reject pile and made fool of yourself in the process.

Re: Ask HN: How do you deal with obvious AI assistant usage in interviews

#23

Post by Jemaclus »

stackdestroyer wrote: post #21
Jemaclus wrote: post #16

I'll go the opposite direction: if your Sr Release Engineer will use AI assistants (Claude Code, etc) on the job, let them use it in the interview. The best interviews test critical thinking and problem-solving, not recall. AI makes generating solutions easier, but it also makes validating those solutions harder. That validation skill is what _actually_ matters now. Focus on that. "How do you validate that your solut…

I only end up with absurd questions if I am nearly positive the candidate is using one of these tools. I was proven right too - I asked a candidate if he'd ever chopped down a tree with an axe. He said no immediately, and then proceeded to give me a solid woodsmans explanation for how to do just that. I stand by what I did.

I guess my question to you would be: does it matter if they're using AI? I don't think anyone in 2026 would criticize a candidate for using a calculator, and Googling syntax and so on hasn't been forbidden in any interview I've had in over 10 years. AI is just another tool, an increasingly ubiquitous one.

Why play games? Just say "Are you using AI to answer these questions? It's OK if you are, but that will change the types of questions I ask." And honestly, maybe that just reveals that we've been asking the wrong questions all along.

Re: Ask HN: How do you deal with obvious AI assistant usage in interviews

#24

Post by sminchev »

When I do interviews, I don't ask so many technical questions. They all can read. If they don't know it now, they can read it later. They can read it from a book, from google search result, or AI. What I usually look for is the good basis and proper mindset. Analytical thinking, curiosity, good communication skills. People who likes challenges. I read it once in an article: AI amplifies. It amplifies the success of the good teams/people/companies. It amplifies the failure of bad teams/people/companies.

If you can detect good basis, their skills, knowing how to use AI, will help them be more productive and give better quality

Re: Ask HN: How do you deal with obvious AI assistant usage in interviews

#25

Post by cableshaft »

stackdestroyer wrote: post #22
bigyabai wrote: post #3

Are you telling them upfront that AI usage is forbidden? If not it's fair game.

I haven't said anything about use of AI during the interview. However, the difference between using an AI tool like Claude or Cursor to help you reason about and develop a solution to a problem, and using something like ParakeetAI to listen to your call and provide you a script to speak is huge - it completely removes the thinking from the interaction. You can tell by how the candidate doesn't pause to contemplate th…

Are you asking pretty standard questions? It's possible they prepared for what they're likely to be asked ahead of time and have scripts to help them not forget.

I've done that before A.I., gone through lists of interview questions on a Google Search (or what I remembered being asked in previous interviews) and thought about how to answer them with the benefit of time to think about it, and even wrote it out so I wouldn't forget. I might only take a brief moment to scroll to the corresponding question (or close enough to that question) and answer (some people might prepare so much they can just respond instantly and not refer to something they prewrote, too).

If I don't do this, I will forget, and will stumble and awkwardly pause in the interview (I still do this sometimes, I don't always prepare that much for interviews, it can be a pain and I might not be given enough time to do it).

The preparation is not unlike a politician or a talk show guest (or especially a comedian) when they go to an interview. Have stories and talking points preplanned, and make sure they go into them and how to say it.

Using A.I. might be the more likely scenario nowadays, but are we really going to assume that people who can give a good and confident answer must be terrible candidates now? That used to be considered a positive thing in interviews (granted, I don't always come across as well polished myself, so I may benefit if less polished becomes what's desired now).

Post reply on HN