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

AI killed the tech interview. Now what?

kanenarraway.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

271–280 of 651 posts

Re: AI killed the tech interview. Now what?

#271

Post by michaelt »

aleph_minus_one wrote: post #109
Clubber wrote: post #94

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We do this too, works fine. We ask open ended questions like, "What's your favorite thing you've done in your career and why?" and "What was the most challenging project in your career and why?" If you listen, you can get a lot of insight from just those two questions. If they don't give enough detail, we'll probe a little. Our "gotcha," which doesn't apply to most languages anymore is, "What's the difference between…

> We do this too, works fine. We ask open ended questions like, "What's your favorite thing you've done in your career and why?" and "What was the most challenging project in your career and why?" If you listen, you can get a lot of insight from just those two questions. If they don't give enough detail, we'll probe a little. The problem is: there is a very negative incentive to give honest answers. If I were to answ…

> I'd bring up some very interesting theorems (related to some deep algorithmic topics) that I proved in my PhD thesis. [...] I switched to industry because of the bad job prospects in academia - this is not what interviewers want to hear.

In my experience you'll be fine giving that answer assuming you're going for the kind of programming job that hires PhDs.

You remind them you have a PhD - and in something deeply algorithmic. You can successfully answer any follow-up questions from them, as you literally have a PhD in the topic they're asking about. There's no shame in entering industry because you want jobs and money - in fact, those things are precisely what the hiring manager is able to offer you.

You'd rather be in academia but it doesn't have the pay and job security? Well, the hiring manager would rather be a snowboard instructor in Aspen but doesn't for the same reason. So you've got common ground with them.

Re: AI killed the tech interview. Now what?

#272

Post by janoc »

wkat4242 wrote: post #263

What a BS article. As they say, just do the interview in person. Problem solved. Not sure about the US but 99% of jobs here in Spain are hybrid or onsite ("presencial"), not fully remote. They're acting like all jobs are remote and it's impossible to do an interview in person. Also, does it really matter? If a person is good at using AI and manages to be good at creating code with that, is it really so much worse tha…

Costs money (travel) and time (company's) plus a lot of this is outsourced to agencies to do the screening.

Yes, it is disgusting. Sadly also very common.

Re: AI killed the tech interview. Now what?

#273

Post by 0_____0 »

placardloop wrote: post #246
0_____0 wrote: post #239

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't see the issue here. Nobody expects candidates to build actual product during the interview. Having a (targeted, scope and time-limited) design discussion or giving your candidate some made-up context around an engineering cycle and then doing a retrospective with them are practical and useful ways to interview a candidate. I'm also not sure what the alternative is? Just not hiring?

> Having a (targeted, scope and time-limited) design discussion or giving your candidate some made-up context around an engineering cycle and then doing a retrospective with them You just described a contrived, “unreal” problem. > I'm also not sure what the alternative is? Just not hiring? The alternative is to come up with questions that are representative of skills related to “real problems”, as you just did, and u…

OK I think we're on the same page, and just had a semantic issue.

Re: AI killed the tech interview. Now what?

#274

Post by m11a »

barbazoo wrote: post #267
m11a wrote: post #248

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I dislike pair programming interviews - as they currently exist - because they usually feel like a time-crunched exam. You don't realistically have the freedom to actually think as you would in actual pair programming. i.e. if you wag your tail chasing a bad end for 15 mins, this is a fail in an interview, but it's pretty realistic of real life work and entirely a non-problem. It's probably even good to test for at i…

> i.e. if you wag your tail chasing a bad end for 15 mins, this is a fail in an interview That’s an assumption. Perhaps following a dead end for a while, realizing it, pivoting, etc is a valuable, positive, signal?

I agree. But what I mean is: that's not how it's perceived in the current interview structure, which lasts maybe 45 minutes or so. Ultimately, going down a dead end means you'd now have 30 minutes to find the right solution and code it up. So the oracle (the interviewer) would probably help you realise sooner that it's a bad idea, so you don't waste your time. That's assuming they know the problem and solution well; if they don't, you'll just lose them and burn through your time.

In a 2 hour pair programming session on an 'unsolved' problem (like an open issue / minor bug / minor feature in a public repo), yes, it will likely not matter if you tried a bad idea, and would both be more realistic and a positive signal.

Re: AI killed the tech interview. Now what?

#275

Post by joshdavham »

karaterobot wrote: post #184

The best interview process I've ever been a part of involved pair programming with the person for a couple hours, after doing the tech screening having a phone call with a member of the team. You never failed to know within a few minutes whether the person could do the job, and be a good coworker. This process worked so well, it created the best team, most productive team I've worked on in 20+ years in the industry,…

I've (unfortunately) been interviewing the last two months and the main pattern that I've noticed is that a) big companies have terrible interview processes while b) small companies and startups are great at interviewing.

Big companies need to hire tons of people and interview even more so they need some sort of scalable process for it. An early stage startup can just ask you about your past projects and pair program with you for an hour.

Re: AI killed the tech interview. Now what?

#276

Post by [deleted] »

ramon156 wrote: post #64
FirmwareBurner wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>we ask him to show us some code he has written How do you expect them to get access to the property internal Git repo codebase and approval from their employer's lawyers to show it to third parties during the interview? Sounds like you're only selecting Foss devs and nothing more.

Most people have still written code for school or a hobby project. Maybe I'm missing empathy, but I cannot understand how some developers have no code to show. If that's the case however, just let them make a small project over the weekend and then do another interview where you ask stuff about what they've made. It's not that deep

[deleted]

Re: AI killed the tech interview. Now what?

#277

Post by codr7 »

The best interview processes are chill, laid back, open ended.

That's the only way you're going to get relevant information.

I've been verified to the moon and back by Apple and others for roles that could never have worked.

The problem is that when it comes to the hiring process, everyone is suddenly an expert; no matter how dysfunctional, inhumane and destructive their ideas are.

Re: AI killed the tech interview. Now what?

#278

Post by nottorp »

placardloop wrote: post #246
0_____0 wrote: post #239

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't see the issue here. Nobody expects candidates to build actual product during the interview. Having a (targeted, scope and time-limited) design discussion or giving your candidate some made-up context around an engineering cycle and then doing a retrospective with them are practical and useful ways to interview a candidate. I'm also not sure what the alternative is? Just not hiring?

> Having a (targeted, scope and time-limited) design discussion or giving your candidate some made-up context around an engineering cycle and then doing a retrospective with them You just described a contrived, “unreal” problem. > I'm also not sure what the alternative is? Just not hiring? The alternative is to come up with questions that are representative of skills related to “real problems”, as you just did, and u…

I've had some success with just describing what we're doing and seeing what the candidates ask.

Mind, I work in very small companies and never had to give input for filling 10 positions at once... just one at a time.

Re: AI killed the tech interview. Now what?

#279

Post by solarmist »

joshdavham wrote: post #275
karaterobot wrote: post #184

The best interview process I've ever been a part of involved pair programming with the person for a couple hours, after doing the tech screening having a phone call with a member of the team. You never failed to know within a few minutes whether the person could do the job, and be a good coworker. This process worked so well, it created the best team, most productive team I've worked on in 20+ years in the industry,…

I've (unfortunately) been interviewing the last two months and the main pattern that I've noticed is that a) big companies have terrible interview processes while b) small companies and startups are great at interviewing. Big companies need to hire tons of people and interview even more so they need some sort of scalable process for it. An early stage startup can just ask you about your past projects and pair program…

I hear this all the time, but I have yet to experience it. It may be because the small companies that I interview with are all startups, but I have yet to be able to get a call back from any other kind of small company. And the startups I do interview with have a full FAANG interview loops.

There seems to be a weird selection bias that if you're FAANG or FAANG adjacent these small companies aren't interested.

Re: AI killed the tech interview. Now what?

#280

Post by codr7 »

m11a wrote: post #248
karaterobot wrote: post #184

The best interview process I've ever been a part of involved pair programming with the person for a couple hours, after doing the tech screening having a phone call with a member of the team. You never failed to know within a few minutes whether the person could do the job, and be a good coworker. This process worked so well, it created the best team, most productive team I've worked on in 20+ years in the industry,…

I dislike pair programming interviews - as they currently exist - because they usually feel like a time-crunched exam. You don't realistically have the freedom to actually think as you would in actual pair programming. i.e. if you wag your tail chasing a bad end for 15 mins, this is a fail in an interview, but it's pretty realistic of real life work and entirely a non-problem. It's probably even good to test for at i…

Hiring doesn't scale, period; deal with it.
Post reply on HN