here's the question, here's the code that ChatGPT produced. what's wrong with it?
AI killed the tech interview. Now what?
481–490 of 651 posts
Re: AI killed the tech interview. Now what?
#482"One of the things we can do, however, is change the nature of the interviews themselves. Coding interviews today are quite basic, anywhere from FizzBuzz, to building a calculator. With AI assistants, we could expand this 10x and have people build complete applications. I think a single, longer interview (2 hours) that mixes architecture and coding will probably be the way to go."
If that's where the things are going, I'm retraining to become a line cook at McDonalds.
Re: AI killed the tech interview. Now what?
#483Prediction: faangs will come up with something clever or random or just fly everyone onsite, they are so rich and popular, they can filter by any arbitrary criteria. Second-rate companies will keep some superficial coding, but will start to emphasize more of the verbal parts like system design and retrospective. Which sucks, because those are totally subjective and mostly filters for whoever can BS better on the spot…
It's not that hard. Just ask them to explain the code. Then ask them how they'd change it for several different scenarios.
I've taken this approach, and found that it's trivially easy to distinguish people relying on LLMs from people who have thought the problem through and can explain their own decision-making process.
I had a couple of people who, when asked to explain specific approaches reflected in their code, very obviously typed my question right back into ChatGPT and then recited its output verbatim. Those interviews came to an end rather quickly.
One of my favorite ones was when I asked a candidate to estimate the complexity of their solution, and ChatGPT got it wrong, giving O(log(n)) for an O(n) algorithm. When I asked leading questions to see if the candidate could see where the error came in, they starting verbatim reciting a dictionary definition of computational complexity, and could not address the specifics of the problem at all.
Re: AI killed the tech interview. Now what?
#484Company 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.…
One of the best interviews I've encountered as a candidate wasn't exactly a pair programming session but it was similar. The interviewer pulled up a webpage of theirs and showed me a problem with it, and then asked how I would approach fixing it. We worked our way through many parts of their stack and while it was me driving most of the way we ended up having a number of interesting conversations that cropped up organically at various points. It was scheduled for an hour and the time actually flew by.
I felt like I got a good sense of what he would be like to work with and he got to see how I approached various problems. It avoided the live coding problems of needing to remember a bunch of syntax trivia on the spot and having to focus on a quick small solution, rather than a large scalable one that you need more often for actual work problems.
Re: AI killed the tech interview. Now what?
#485Earlier quoted context omitted.
But I'm talking about the idea of pair programming for an hour or two. Why can't the standardized test still involve that? What doesn't "scale" about it?
I think it’s easier to compare candidates who might have been interviewed by different people possibly weeks apart if you have a coding challenge… could they solve the problem we gave them, if yes how quickly and how well. Interviewers can write their notes, the session can be recorded and the committee can compare candidates relatively fairly. Comparing candidates based on how they “vibe” with the interviewer during…
If you're worried about interviews weeks apart and cross-team testing, then the most that can hurt efficiency is making you do the test with the team they'll be imminently hired into, which means you're on par with the small company, nothing lost nothing gained.
Avoiding pair programming for the reason you listed sounds like lawyers getting in the way, not scaling. But yeah we'd need to hear someone say if that's actually happening.
Re: AI killed the tech interview. Now what?
#486I think code design can often cover just as much as actual code anyway. Just describe to me how your solve it, the interfaces you'd use, and how you'd show me you solved it.
As an interviewee it's insane to me how many jobs I have not gotten because of some arbitrary coding problem. I can confidently say after having worked in this field for over a decade and at a FAANG that I am a very capable programmer. I am considered one of the best on every team I've been on. So they are definitely selecting the wrong people IMO.
Re: AI killed the tech interview. Now what?
#487Earlier 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 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 fai…
Exactly! Who calls "researching how to build X, but then letting my pair-programming partner fall down a rabbit hole so I can feel superior" "pair programming".
Re: AI killed the tech interview. Now what?
#488The 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,…
> person for a couple hours,
>You never failed to know within a few minutes whether the person could do the job
Did a misunderstood something or your best interview process is to multiple hours from someone when you've decided within minutes?
Re: AI killed the tech interview. Now what?
#489Earlier quoted context omitted.
No question. Yet, social connection seems worth 10x or 100x competence in any particular circumstance and the effects compound. There are some real benefits from and needs to be prosocial and socially competent but I've regularly seen social competent but technically incompetent people advance far over technically competent but less socially agenda driving people (that are nonetheless socially competent). This only g…
What do you mean by 'low level'? Are you talking about a traditional Staff / Principal engineering role or something different?
Sorry for my lack of clarity, yes. Pure code and technical contribution, up to mentoring, as opposed to holding architecture summits, politicking, and the like. I've been pushed into management and socializing without regard to my willingness.
Re: AI killed the tech interview. Now what?
#490Earlier quoted context omitted.
The GP is still passing through hundreds of people, dozens of them capable, until he reaches somebody that convinces him of their competence. You were passed down because you weren't convincing enough. Or maybe he is getting resumes from a channel that has been victim of machine-gun filling, and there indeed thousands of incompetent people posting resumes into every channel and just half a dozen real applicants. TBF,…
I have only a resume to convince them. I have job experience at major companies, with examples of what I've built when there, personal projects I've made, a github link, a great GPA from a good school. And I know similar Junior-mid people in the same boat. We can all do Fizzbuzz, we've all built things, and somehow we're not getting interviews, but people that can't do Fizzbuzz are. Do thousands of incompetents also…
> Do thousands of incompetents also machine-gun apply
Enough that it's HR or some automated software that first screens your application.
> Something isn't adding up.
Yes. The pipeline "posting > application > screening" is now completely broken. In your case it's quite possible it's HR and screening software that your resume is not convincing. I have been hoping for anecdotes and studies in this direction (from people who have access to the HR and/or software screening and are inclined to report) - but it's at least not common. What we do hear from, is tons of people who can program and who are not getting even first interviews.