361–370 of 735 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I did this while hiring last year and the number of candidates who got stuff wrong because they were too proud to just look up the answer was shocking.
Is it pride or is it hard to shake the (reasonable, I'd say) fear the reviewer will judge regardless of their claims?
My startup got acquired last year so I haven't interviewed anyone in a while, but my technical interview has always been: - share your screen - download/open the coding challenge - you can use any website, Stack Overflow, whatever, to answer my questions as long as it's on the screenshare My goal is to determine if the candidate can be technically productive, so I allow any programming language, IDE, autocompleter, e…
Some of the questions in our interview loop have been posted in github... which means every AI has trained on them specifically. They are, therefore, useless if you have AI turned on. And if you interview enough people, someone will post on github, and therefore your question will have a pretty short shelf life before it's in training and instantly solved.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This completely.. You ask a rote question and you'll get a rote answer while the interviewee is busy looking at a fixed point on the screen. You then ask a pointed question about something they know or care about, and suddenly their face lights up, they're animated, and they are looking around. It's a huge tell.
You know, this makes me wonder if a viable remote interview technique, at least until real-time deepfaking gets better, would be to have people close their eyes while talking to them. For somebody who knows their stuff it'll have zero impact; for someone relying entirely on GPT, it will completely derail them.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don't know, I kind of feel like leetcode interviews are a situation where the employer is cheating. I mean, you're admittedly filtering out a great number of acceptable candidates knowing that if you just find 1 in a 1000, that'll be good enough. It is patently unfair to the individuals that are smart enough to do your work, but poor at some farcical representation of the work. That is cheating. In my opinion, if a…
I dunno why there is always the assumption in these threads that leetcode is being used. My company has never used leetcode-style questions, and likely never will. I work in security, and our questions are pretty basic stuff. "What is cross-site scripting, and how would you protect against it?", "You're tasked with parsing a log file to return the IP addresses that appear at least 10 times, how would you approach thi…
Out of curiosity, did anyone just reply with `awk ... | sort | count ... | awk`? Its certainly what I would do rather than writing out an actual script.
My company, a very very large company, is transitioning back to only in-person interviews due to the rampant amount of cheating happening during interviews. As an interviewer, it's wild to me how many candidates think they can get away with it, when you can very obviously hear them typing, then watching their eyes move as they read an answer from another screen. And the majority of the time the answer is incorrect an…
Detection of AI in remote interviews, behavioral and technical, just has to be taught today if you are ever interviewing people that don't come from in-network recommendations. Completely fake candidates are way too common.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
They put their phone number there because they want you to call it. I say "I saw this position advertised on LinkedIn and I'm interested, is this still available?" Last time I did this they told me it is but that they are at late stages of interviewing so I shouldn't bother applying for that one, but they got down my details and had other jobs that matched what I was looking for. Recruiters are sales people and you j…
And when was this? I can't remember the last time anyone had their phone number publicly displayed on LinkedIn. And now messaging recruiters is a paid feature. The market's only making it more difficult to reach a human.
My startup got acquired last year so I haven't interviewed anyone in a while, but my technical interview has always been: - share your screen - download/open the coding challenge - you can use any website, Stack Overflow, whatever, to answer my questions as long as it's on the screenshare My goal is to determine if the candidate can be technically productive, so I allow any programming language, IDE, autocompleter, e…
I'd be fine with the GPT side of things, as long as I could somehow inject poor answers, and see if the interviewee notices and corrects.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
hiring market tightened up... that doesn't mean there isn't one
nope, but the process is worse - Much less resposnes - For your sanity you want to make sure there aren't obvious signs of something being a ghost job, an H1B hire, an internal hire, or a farce because "we're always growing" (lying). - expect longer processes. Hasn't happened to me but 7+ stage interview processes is not uncommon these days, even outside of tech - accept that some processes will be frozen under your…
"logically, necessarily" as Marc Andreessen says? https://futurism.com/the-byte/ai-investor-goal-crash-human-w...
Now if they could also crash factors like material, energy and profit... consumers could pay pennies using their centinaire incomes.
Part of my resume review process is trying to decide if I can trust the person. If their resume seems too AI-generated, I feel less like I can trust that candidate and typically reject the candidate. Once you get to the interview process, it's very clear if someone thinks they can use AI to help with the interview process. I'm not going to sit here while you type my question into OpenAI and try to BS a meaningful res…
It's as if we were testing for replicants in Blade Runner: The AI response will rarely figure out you are aiming to look for something frustrating, that they are actually proud of, or figure out when you are looking for a hot take you can then disagree with.
My company, a very very large company, is transitioning back to only in-person interviews due to the rampant amount of cheating happening during interviews. As an interviewer, it's wild to me how many candidates think they can get away with it, when you can very obviously hear them typing, then watching their eyes move as they read an answer from another screen. And the majority of the time the answer is incorrect an…
So far 3 of the 11 people we interviewed have been clearly using ChatGPT for the >>behavioral We actually allow using AI in our in-person technical interviews, but our questions are worded to fail safety checks. We'll talk about smuggling nuclear weapons, violent uprising, staging a coup, manufacturing fentanyl, etc. (within the context of system design) and that gives us really good mileage on weeding out those who…