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

Interviewing a software engineer who prepared with AI

kapwing.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 731 posts

Re: Interviewing a software engineer who prepared with AI

#51

Post by madeofpalk »

yieldcrv wrote: post #38

Anyone that’s been on the market lately know that some companies encourage AI use in various ways so all I can say is fix your assessments because this whole “they cheated” idea isnt universal, and more likely matches what people do on your job already but for anyone that didnt read this article yet, this one is just about embellished experience custom tailored to get the interview, and there was no technical assessm…

If someone used an AI tool, but they can’t talk about its output sufficiently, then they’ll cheated. They did themselves a disservice.

Re: Interviewing a software engineer who prepared with AI

#52

Post by no_wizard »

OptionOfT wrote: post #17
theamk wrote: post #2

An interesting story! I've also had an AI cheater during phone screen, but they were pretty clumsy... A question of form "You mentioned you used TechX on your resume, tell me more what you did with it" was answered with a long-winded but generic description of TechX and zero information about their project or personal contribution. Another thing that I can take away from that is "take home project" is no longer a goo…

I've had situations where I submitted a take-home exercise, only for me to get feedback that it didn't match their required level. After some back & forth I was able to (politely) prove their feedback was not correct, which actually granted me a follow-up interview. Unfortunately, this was a unicorn, most companies don't give feedback, let alone admit they were wrong. But, take-home is preferred, I want to use my IDE…

>When an HVAC company hires a new tech

HVAC has certifications you can get. We should strongly consider this in our industry. I don't think its an unreasonable compromise, especially now with the advent of LLMs.

Re: Interviewing a software engineer who prepared with AI

#53

Post by masfuerte »

crooked-v wrote: post #12
lurker919 wrote: post #10

I recently interviewed an engineer who was somehow using ChatGPT realtime on another laptop beside him. The irony was that the questions were pretty simple overall and our rubric also wasn't very strict, so he likely would have passed if he just used his memory and common sense. Though the answers weren't wrong overall, I still felt cheated because of the deception and had to reject him later.

I rejected an applicant earlier this year who was obviously reading off another screen for every answer (as in, blatant pauses while I could literally see their eyes moving back and forth). I don't understand if they thought I wouldn't notice or what.

You can get an AI tool now to fix the eye movement. Sadly.

I enjoy remote work but I wouldn't want to start working for a company where I had never met anyone. It seems like a great way to get scammed.

One real-life interview would surely be beneficial for both sides.

Re: Interviewing a software engineer who prepared with AI

#54

Post by ern »

stuartjohnson12 wrote: post #41
MrDarcy wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This situation terrifies me as an autistic person. I can’t fathom maintaining eye contact while taking the time to think about a response to an interview question, even over a video call. I at least look up toward the ceiling while thinking so maybe that’s sufficient to not give off cheating vibes.

Fellow autist here, I don't think you have anything to worry about, the eye movements of someone reading are very different to autistic scanning while thinking. Reading has a rhythmic left right pattern to the eye twitches while scanning (at least for me) tends to either be fixed in place or rolling in a way that is basically impossible to confuse with reading.

You’re assuming that the person interviewing you can distinguish between those eye movements. That’s a big assumption.

Re: Interviewing a software engineer who prepared with AI

#55

Post by zanecodes »

MrDarcy wrote: post #31
crooked-v wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I rejected an applicant earlier this year who was obviously reading off another screen for every answer (as in, blatant pauses while I could literally see their eyes moving back and forth). I don't understand if they thought I wouldn't notice or what.

This situation terrifies me as an autistic person. I can’t fathom maintaining eye contact while taking the time to think about a response to an interview question, even over a video call. I at least look up toward the ceiling while thinking so maybe that’s sufficient to not give off cheating vibes.

Closing your eyes is always an option, if you're trying to think deeply and without distraction. It helps a lot to explain your stream of consciousness as you think, even if it's disorganized, and you're definitely not cheating if your eyes are closed!

Re: Interviewing a software engineer who prepared with AI

#56

Post by aaomidi »

no-dr-onboard wrote: post #45

I keep coming back to this phrase used in this post: "it was scary". Yeah, hiring is scary. Hiring is insanely expensive on all fronts. Firing people is difficult, it's expensive and legally exposing. Hiring the wrong person, allowing them access your systems and potentially exfiltrate your IP to them is a hazardous but necessary venture. The thing is, none of these things really changed with AI. People have been lyi…

> Companies just need to fork the upfront $13-1500 dollars for a set of plane tickets for their hiring team and rented conference rooms for a week. It's a whole lot cheaper than spending 50k because you hired the wrong person for half a year.

There are very few companies I'd fly out for TBH.

IMO Make firing easier, pay people a massive severance if you're firing them for a mistake you made in hiring, and initially start them out as remote so you're not forcing a lifestyle change for them if you realize you made a mistake.

Re: Interviewing a software engineer who prepared with AI

#57

Post by bravetraveler »

madeofpalk wrote: post #48
mathgeek wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Agreed, the “I used AI” part is just the 2025 version of “I did my research on your company and then lied about my experience to make me sound like a better fit”.

The twist on “I used AI” to this though is that everyone comes out looking the same. They all have the same resume format, made by the same tool, stuffed with the same keywords.

Doesn't seem to function all that differently from 'higher education'.

Re: Interviewing a software engineer who prepared with AI

#58

Post by Aurornis »

no-dr-onboard wrote: post #45

I keep coming back to this phrase used in this post: "it was scary". Yeah, hiring is scary. Hiring is insanely expensive on all fronts. Firing people is difficult, it's expensive and legally exposing. Hiring the wrong person, allowing them access your systems and potentially exfiltrate your IP to them is a hazardous but necessary venture. The thing is, none of these things really changed with AI. People have been lyi…

> The thing is, none of these things really changed with AI

I agree that lying was possible before AI, but something about AI has emboldened a lot more people to try to lie.

Something about having the machine fabricate the lie for you seems to lessen the guilt of lying.

There's also a growing sentiment online that using AI to cheat/lie is "fair" because they think companies are using AI to screen candidates. It's not logically consistent, but it appeals to people who approach these problems as class warfare.

Re: Interviewing a software engineer who prepared with AI

#59

Post by bee_rider »

myself248 wrote: post #27
inertiatic wrote: post #5

I don't know how this is something related to AI - you could polish and embellish your resume before LLMs too, I'm fairly sure. I guess this gets the clicks. Not being to remember small details about certain projects is also perfectly fine for people who have worked for more than a couple of years. Unless you can discover a pattern of lying like the author supposedly did then I would just be perfectly fine moving on…

It sounded like the candidate froze mid-interview to ask the AI to provide more detail about the things it'd already fabricated.

I guess they will have to get the AI to listen in on the call next time.

Re: Interviewing a software engineer who prepared with AI

#60

Post by Aurornis »

aaomidi wrote: post #56
no-dr-onboard wrote: post #45

I keep coming back to this phrase used in this post: "it was scary". Yeah, hiring is scary. Hiring is insanely expensive on all fronts. Firing people is difficult, it's expensive and legally exposing. Hiring the wrong person, allowing them access your systems and potentially exfiltrate your IP to them is a hazardous but necessary venture. The thing is, none of these things really changed with AI. People have been lyi…

> Companies just need to fork the upfront $13-1500 dollars for a set of plane tickets for their hiring team and rented conference rooms for a week. It's a whole lot cheaper than spending 50k because you hired the wrong person for half a year. There are very few companies I'd fly out for TBH. IMO Make firing easier, pay people a massive severance if you're firing them for a mistake you made in hiring, and initially st…

I thought "fire fast" was a viable strategy until I joined a company that did exactly that.

They didn't fire many people quickly, but it had a deeply chilling effect when someone was only at the company for a month or two before disappearing.

One of the unspoken difficulties of firing fast is that the person does a lot of relationship building with people who don't work with their output. It was often the case that someone would become well-liked by people who never saw their code, who would then become distraught when the likable person vanished one day.

Post reply on HN