51–60 of 126 posts
If you have job requirements that extend beyond “trivially completable with AI” ask questions that aren’t trivially completable with AI.
Rather than banning AI in technical interviews, better to see how the candidates use it and if they can comprehend what the LLM is saying, the quality of their prompts and own thinking.
I believe people who are using these AI tools to pass interviews wont be able to use AI in their real job in a net positive manner.
But when it came to large complex codebase or problems that required critical thinking everything fell apart.
I've spent the last decade watching this arms race between interviewers and candidates. Last month I hired a senior dev who couldn't implement a basic database migration when we brought him on but aced our interview problems. Turned out he'd been using tools like this. The problem isn't the tools - they're inevitable. The problem is that our industry clings to this bizarre ritual where we test for skills that are com…
Whenever the topic about how broken tech interviews are has showed up on HN in the past, there were usually two crowds: the "they suck, but they're the best we've got" people, and the much less common "they suck, so we do something else" crowd. Almost everyone agreed they were broken.
What does it say about the tech industry that so many orgs continued to use a system that was known to be broken for so long? How much inefficiency and waste over the past couple of decades is attributable to bad hires? And conversely, how many efficiency improvements in the near future are going to get attributed to AI tech rather than the side effect of improved interviewing practices meant to combat AI candidates?
So, am I missing something? Is this just a tool allowing job candidates to commit fraud? I'm no lawyer, so I'm not sure this would rise to the level of actual legal fraud, but moral fraud at the very least is what I think I'm seeing. EDIT: Now I see it at the bottom of the page... "Interview Coder is a desktop app designed to help job seekers ace technical interviews by providing real-time assistance with coding ques…
Or maybe it's defensive against an industry who has developed ridiculous hiring practices.
If you want a job that someone is offering and they ask you for irrational, unreasonable, or just stupid demonstrations as a prerequisite for getting hired, you have one choice: decide for yourself the show isn't worth the price of admission and walk away... or you do the irrational, unreasonable, or just stupid thing asked to the best of your ability and keep your hat in the ring for the gig. Either way honesty and ethics dictate that you either play the game or walk away.
The moment you cheat and lie: that's entirely on you and perhaps your own dumbass decision to train and enter an industry that works this way. Of course, I mean "you" in the abstract, not necessarily you personally.
I've spent the last decade watching this arms race between interviewers and candidates. Last month I hired a senior dev who couldn't implement a basic database migration when we brought him on but aced our interview problems. Turned out he'd been using tools like this. The problem isn't the tools - they're inevitable. The problem is that our industry clings to this bizarre ritual where we test for skills that are com…
I think if I were hiring remotely right now I’d look to create exercises that could be done “open book” using AI, but that I’d validated against current models as something they don’t do very well on their own. There are still tons of areas where the training data is thinner or very outdated, and there’s plenty of signal in seeing whether someone can work through that on their own and fix the things the LLM does wron…
The engineers I’ve worked with who’ve caused the most damage by far, have have been technical tornadoes who did fine in interviews.
I’ve never seen any damage caused by someone who slipped through the cracks without being able to code at all (and I’ve worked with people like that).
I think we’d be much better off if we just fired people who outright lie about their ability to code and spent more time digging into previous employment history, talking though projects, and talking to old coworkers.
My approach to technical interviews is just to talk shop with the candidate for an hour. Throughout the conversation, we mostly stay light and touch on a lot of different topics. But every so often, I’ll drill in and start discussing some random topic at depth. If you drill in just 2-3 times throughout the interview, you get a pretty clear picture of the candidates average depth of knowledge. Not only is this LLM pro…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>Leetcode needs to die and a means to an end in the age of AI. This is just, like, your opinion. Your future employer may think otherwise, and look for people with algorithmic skills. "But leetcode is actually evil" is just your rationalisation of your cheating.
leetcode is a bastard. I fucking hate it with a passion. Its almost useless as a way to learn how to be a better coder, as most of the "fastest" answers are unreadable. But if you are using it as a basis for interviews, you are more likely to bump into someone who has trained on that particular question. I'm not sure what the answer is, as other said, pair programming is kinda the answer. Maybe debugging something in…