31–40 of 47 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
"If I cheat I can get high score" does not mean the king has no clothes.
Is it cheating if you use the same tools to solve a problem as you would in a job? "No calculators" is lame when the job entails using calculators.
Math, which is more than arithmetic, is still important in the age of calculators.
Using a tool does not substitute for clear thinking and deep experience, which is what they're trying to test for.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Some people need to realize we live in a society and society mostly functions by having people do the right thing when defecting is easier and more convenient. This person is one of them.
What makes these tactics the "right thing"? I as a prospective employee don't get to quiz the interviewer using the same tactics? I can ask questions, but how I do know they're knowledgeable and that I want to work for them? Or should I be thankful they're even talking to me? I think it's a terrible practice and that we can do better.
If you are so good and have options that you can turn down companies, just tell the company you refuse to do leetcode style, and see what happens.
For really good people, yes the tables can and do turn.
Thiel Fellowship incoming.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Is it cheating if you use the same tools to solve a problem as you would in a job? "No calculators" is lame when the job entails using calculators.
Yes I think it is. Math, which is more than arithmetic, is still important in the age of calculators. Using a tool does not substitute for clear thinking and deep experience, which is what they're trying to test for.
They may but do not necessarily test for clear thinking and deep experience.
I feel like covid started the remote work revolution and AI cheating is about to end it. Or at least bring back on-site interviews.
On-site interviews are pretty clearly the antidote to this, but that costs money this quarter. In contrast, the cost of hiring a total fraud cannot be pinpointed to any one metric or line item.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yes I think it is. Math, which is more than arithmetic, is still important in the age of calculators. Using a tool does not substitute for clear thinking and deep experience, which is what they're trying to test for.
Leet code interviews are passed by having invested time practicing at leetcode interviews. They may but do not necessarily test for clear thinking and deep experience.
There is something very frustrating about living this experience and being surrounded by folks who refuse to admit it is real. Those same folks who couldn't help in those times.
It's fine, it's not always required for every job, but I sure as heck would appreciate working with folks who can describe set cover or what have you. I work where I work though. So, it's different all over. But to unilaterally say it's invalid is just plain wrong.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
"If I cheat I can get high score" does not mean the king has no clothes.
The end result of all this, they go back to in person interviews, at least for a "final" round. Or some alternative, there is some trusted third party monitoring the candidate.
We have had people use AI in our interviews and fail miserably. We have always allowed people to search and use other resources during our interviews, and made the decision that using chat was fine as long as we could see what you were doing.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
He parlayed his AI wrapper into fooling Amazon into a prized job offer by gaming an unpopular algorithmic interview technique. It isn’t that he made AI wrapper, it’s that he pointed out the king has no clothes with it.
"If I cheat I can get high score" does not mean the king has no clothes.
I feel like covid started the remote work revolution and AI cheating is about to end it. Or at least bring back on-site interviews.
On-site interviews are pretty clearly the antidote to this, but that costs money this quarter. In contrast, the cost of hiring a total fraud cannot be pinpointed to any one metric or line item.