AI killed the tech interview. Now what? • Hacker News Board

Re: AI killed the tech interview. Now what?

#41

Post by OptionOfT » Thu, Feb 20, 2025, 12:57 AM UTC

sulami wrote: post #19

I've been arguing that "AI" has very little impact on meaningful technical interviews, that is ones that don't test for memorization of programming trivia: https://blog.sulami.xyz/posts/llm-interviews/

A couple of weeks ago I interviewed at a place where I had to do a take-home exercise. It's fine, I don't mind. No Leetcode. Just my own IDE, my own shortcuts, and write a piece code that solves a problem.

I was asked whether I used AI/LLM for the solution. I didn't. I felt like using an LLM to solve the problem for me wasn't the right way of showcasing knowledge. The role was for some form of 'come in with knowledge and help us'.

The response to that was basically: everybody here uses AI.

I declined the follow-up interview, as I felt that if all you have is the speed of AI to be ahead of your competitors, you're not really building the kind of things that I want to be a part of. It basically implies that the role is up in the air as soon as the AI gets better.

Re: AI killed the tech interview. Now what?

#42

Post by benatkin » Thu, Feb 20, 2025, 12:57 AM UTC

recursive wrote: post #5

jarsin wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Standardized plus the ability for companies to do their own test after they pass the standard one. So go get prescreened at test center then use that test to apply for jobs. Company either flys you in for in-person or sends you back to test center to do live remote interview in controlled environment.

That was essentially triplebyte.

That was part of it. Another part was it being socially awkward in a way that I think outsourcing testing needn't be.

Re: AI killed the tech interview. Now what?

#43

Post by ytch » Thu, Feb 20, 2025, 12:59 AM UTC

If you are using Internet, Google, Stackoverflow at work, why insist that interviewee need to solve problems on their own?

Re: AI killed the tech interview. Now what?

#44

Post by userbinator » Thu, Feb 20, 2025, 1:04 AM UTC

ytch wrote: post #43

If you are using Internet, Google, Stackoverflow at work, why insist that interviewee need to solve problems on their own?

To test their inherent thinking skills and base knowledge.

There's a huge difference between occasionally looking up something, and practically leaning on it. Ironically, the mass degradation of search engine result quality within the past ~decade has made it much harder for people to do the latter, and when they do, it shows much more clearly.

Re: AI killed the tech interview. Now what?

#45

Post by knowaveragejoe » Thu, Feb 20, 2025, 3:08 AM UTC

torben-friis wrote: post #27

My last interview, for the job I'm currently employed in, asked for a take home assignment where I was allowed to use any tool I'd use regularly including AI. Similar process for a live coding interview iterating on the take home that followed. I personally used it to speed up wirting initial boilerplate and test suites. I fail to see why this wouldn't be the obvious choice. Do we disallow linters or static analysis…

As someone on the other side of the table, I don't care if you used AI to complete a take-home project. I care if you can explain the strengths and weaknesses of the approach it took, or if you chose to steer it in one direction or another. It usually becomes quite clear those who actually understand what the AI actually did for them.

Re: AI killed the tech interview. Now what?

#46

Post by OutOfHere » Thu, Feb 20, 2025, 3:26 AM UTC

janalsncm wrote: post #35

rvz wrote: post #26

Or you can just given them a way to bypass all of that, and ask them about any significant project that the candidate did build (which is relevant to the job description, open or closed source that is released) or even open source contributions towards widely used and significant projects. (Not hello world, or demo projects, or README changes.) Both scenarios are easily verifiable (can check that you released the pro…

This would be a nice interview for candidates who have open source contributions, but many who have day jobs do not. Or their open source code is 5 years old and not representative of their current skill set.

There is no shame in taking time off after leaving a job to develop or contribute to an open source project or two. The world would be a better place for it.

Re: AI killed the tech interview. Now what?

#47

Post by OutOfHere » Thu, Feb 20, 2025, 3:31 AM UTC

Show the remote candidate an AI's deficient answer to a well-asked question, and ask the candidate if they understand what exactly is wrong with the AI's assessment, or what the follow-up/rewritten prompt to the AI should be. Compile a library of such deficient chats with the AI.

Re: AI killed the tech interview. Now what?

#48

Post by tonymet » Thu, Feb 20, 2025, 4:45 AM UTC

ge96 wrote: post #25

tonymet wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

you're not allowed to discriminate

Is that discrimination? Somebody can en an annoying prick regardless of their background.

If the candidate is a protected class and they are rejected for "cultural fit" it will be an easy case for EEOC to raise a discrimination case.

This is effectively how Harvard was rejecting Asian applicants. They created a "personal fit" / cultural fit quality that Asians scored low on . Supreme Court found this to be discrimination.

It doesn't matter if you are truly discriminating, it matters how well you have tangible evidence of the employee not meeting the qualifications for the role.

Re: AI killed the tech interview. Now what?

#49

Post by tonymet » Thu, Feb 20, 2025, 4:47 AM UTC

tokioyoyo wrote: post #36

tonymet wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

you're not allowed to discriminate

Discriminate against... a personality that will negatively impact the team dynamics? It's not that easy, to be honest, as every team has its own requirements.

would you be able to document this negative fit in an impartial way when rejecting a protected class?

Re: AI killed the tech interview. Now what?

#50

Post by jochem9 » Thu, Feb 20, 2025, 6:19 AM UTC

OptionOfT wrote: post #41

sulami wrote: post #19

I've been arguing that "AI" has very little impact on meaningful technical interviews, that is ones that don't test for memorization of programming trivia: https://blog.sulami.xyz/posts/llm-interviews/

A couple of weeks ago I interviewed at a place where I had to do a take-home exercise. It's fine, I don't mind. No Leetcode. Just my own IDE, my own shortcuts, and write a piece code that solves a problem. I was asked whether I used AI/LLM for the solution. I didn't. I felt like using an LLM to solve the problem for me wasn't the right way of showcasing knowledge. The role was for some form of 'come in with knowledge…

When I started coding I did it in notepad. I thought it was hardcore and cool. I was young and stupid. Then I adopted an IDE and I became much better at writing code.

To me AI is just another tool that helps me solve problems with code. An auto complete on steroids. A context aware stack overflow search. Not wanting to adopt or not even work somewhere where colleagues use it, sounds to me like coding in notepad AND in the process scoffing those who use an IDE.

Besides, if AI gets to the point it can replace you, it will replace you. Better to start learning how to work with it so you can fill whatever gap AI can't.