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

281–290 of 651 posts

Re: AI killed the tech interview. Now what?

#281

Post by codr7 »

solarmist wrote: post #279
joshdavham wrote: post #275

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Yeah, been there, done that; wannabe FAANGs are the worst.

Re: AI killed the tech interview. Now what?

#282

Post by codr7 »

vasco wrote: post #231
diob wrote: post #228

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's because coding interview questions aren't so much assessing job skills as much as they are thinly veiled IQ tests. I think if it was socially acceptable they'd just do the latter.

A lot of companies have IQ like tests, in particular big consulting companies like McKinsey and so on.

And they're losing all but the worst candidates because of it, which explains a lot.

Re: AI killed the tech interview. Now what?

#283

Post by gopher_space »

michaelt wrote: post #217
perlgeek wrote: post #132

Company A wants to hire an engineer, an AI could solve all their tech interview questions, so why not hire that AI instead? There's very likely a real answer to that question, and that answer should shape the way that engineer should be assessed and hired. For example, it could be that the company wants the engineer to do some kind of assessment whether a feature should be implemented at all, and if yes, in what way.…

> Company A wants to hire an engineer, an AI could solve all their tech interview questions, so why not hire that AI instead? Interview coding questions aren't like the day-to-day job, because of the nature of an interview. In an hour-long interview, I have to be able to state the problem in a way the candidate can understand, within 10 minutes or so. We don't have time for a lecture on the intricacies of voucher cal…

> In an hour-long interview, I have to be able to state the problem in a way the candidate can understand, within 10 minutes or so. We don't have time for a lecture on the intricacies of voucher calculation and global sales tax law.

If you send me a rubric I can pre-load whatever you want to talk about. If you tell me what you're trying to build and what you need help with, I can show up with a game plan.

You need to make time for a conversation on the intricacies of voucher calculation and global sales tax law if you want to find people jazzed about the problem space.

Re: AI killed the tech interview. Now what?

#284

Post by blitzar »

piyuv wrote: post #210
brainwipe wrote: post #71

I was asked by an SME to code on a whiteboard for an interview (in 2005? I think?). I asked if I could have a computer, they said no. I asked if I would be using a whiteboard during my day-to-day. They said no. I asked why they used whiteboards, they said they were mimicking Google's best practice. That discussion went on for a good few minutes and by the end of it I was teetering on leaving because the fit wasn't go…

You should’ve asked them “do you also mimic google’s compensation?”

"How many google shares do I get?"

Re: AI killed the tech interview. Now what?

#285

Post by open592 »

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…

> i.e. if you wag your tail chasing a bad end for 15 mins, this is a fail in an interview

In all pair programming interviews I have run (which I will admit have been only a few) I would fail myself as an interviewer if I was not able to guide the interviewee away from a dead end within 15 minutes.

If the candidate wasn't able to understand the hints I was giving them, or just kept driving forward, then they would fail.

Re: AI killed the tech interview. Now what?

#286

Post by codr7 »

tokai wrote: post #269
brainwipe wrote: post #71

I was asked by an SME to code on a whiteboard for an interview (in 2005? I think?). I asked if I could have a computer, they said no. I asked if I would be using a whiteboard during my day-to-day. They said no. I asked why they used whiteboards, they said they were mimicking Google's best practice. That discussion went on for a good few minutes and by the end of it I was teetering on leaving because the fit wasn't go…

>I was allowed to use any programming language because they knew them all (allegedly). brainfuck time

Hehe, I have to remember to bring one of my custom Forths to the next interview.

Re: AI killed the tech interview. Now what?

#287

Post by Attummm »

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 been a proponent of pair programming since the early days of Agile, when it was still seen as part of extreme programming. Unfortunately, it’s not often employed in workplace settings.

With that said, would your perception of the interview remain positive if the outcome had been negative?

A common challenge across all interviews is a mismatch in personal dynamics, which can significantly impact the experience for both participants.

Consider a scenario where a senior developer, who prefers simplicity, is paired with a mid-level developer who is still captivated by complexity.

Re: AI killed the tech interview. Now what?

#288

Post by paulcole »

> I think the image below pretty much sums it up

The image below does sum it up but not in the way the author thinks.

Google wants to hire people who complete their hiring process. They're OK with missing out on some people who would be excellent but who can't/won't make it through their hiring process.

The mistake may lie in copying Google's hiring process.

Re: AI killed the tech interview. Now what?

#289

Post by jakubmazanec »

michpoch wrote: post #251
jakubmazanec wrote: post #187

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> self-selects for people who already are unemployed then You can say that about all forms of hiring process. If you're unemployed, you obviously have more time: to spend more time on the take-home assignments (which I hate, see another thread [1]), to add more stuff to your GitHub profile, to go to more interviews, etc. [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40200397

> You can say that about all forms of hiring process Yes, but there's a significant difference between spending a few hours on a take-home assignment and dropping your current employment to spend 4 weeks potentially in another city working full time.

Well, I didn't say it was super practical approach, only that it has the best predictive validity :D

Re: AI killed the tech interview. Now what?

#290

Post by idispatch »

scarface_74 wrote: post #87
ramon156 wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

I’ve been working professionally for almost 30 years. I have never written a single line of code “for fun”. I write code for money . I then take that money to fund my hobbies. The absolutely last thing I want to do when I get off work is stare at a computer. If I already have a job, unless you are paying top of market, why would I spend my weekend writing code?

It looks like you professionally sold 30 years of your life for money with no fun. You could have done something for fun all this time, and got payed for it, too. Much better that way.
Post reply on HN