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

191–200 of 731 posts

Re: Interviewing a software engineer who prepared with AI

#191

Post by no-dr-onboard »

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…

Hm, it turns out suggesting that someone buy a suit for a job they need is a litmus test.

Re: Interviewing a software engineer who prepared with AI

#192

Post by roguecoder »

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.

Most people have eye movements when recalling a memory, rather than maintaining eye contact (https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/human-neuroscience/arti...)

To me, it's actually the lack of any indication that work is happening that gives of cheating vibes. If someone sits their glassy-eyed for twenty seconds, and then starts speaking in complete sentences, it is going to come across as though they are reading. Not to mention that people's intonation is often different if they aren't thinking up what to say.

If you do get stuck, you can avoid ambiguity by sharing some meta-commentary on what you are thinking and why. "I know that library uses X, but I'm not sure if it can do Y and I'm trying to think if I could work around that... okay, so what I would do is..." Something like that, so that the interviewer knows where your ideas are coming from.

Re: Interviewing a software engineer who prepared with AI

#193

Post by bluefirebrand »

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…

> And yeah, you guys, it's time to buy a suit

No company worth working for would refuse to hire someone just because they didn't wear a suit to their interview

Dress nicely, sure. Wear a collar? Yeah probably. A tie? Meh.

Let's get rid of this old fashioned boomer nonsense from hiring please

Re: Interviewing a software engineer who prepared with AI

#194

Post by nradov »

niccl wrote: post #187
donnachangstein wrote: post #182

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Nearly every large company I've interviewed with would comply with a reasonable accommodation request for a legitimate disability e.g. providing a deaf person the interview questions on paper or even having an ASL interpreter present. In fact many mention it up front on the screening call before any questions are asked.

> Nearly every large company I've interviewed with would comply with a reasonable accommodation request for a legitimate disability so neuro divergence isn't a legitimate disability?

That depends on several factors. You should read the official guidance.

https://www.eeoc.gov/laws/guidance/enforcement-guidance-reas...

Re: Interviewing a software engineer who prepared with AI

#195

Post by roguecoder »

mavsman wrote: post #26
ChicagoBoy11 wrote: post #15

Oddly one impact on me from reading this is that Kapwing seems like probably a nice place to apply for a job -- simple enough application process, human review, sane and respectful take-home and no live pressure coding. I'm not affiliated in any way nor am I a FT software developer, but this seemed like a pretty sane process (which sadly the article reveals may not be sufficient to properly vet candidates).

I think this was the whole point of the blog post. As someone else mentioned, this didn't have much to do with AI so referencing AI seems purely like an attempt to capture some eyes for publicity. I'd actually say that _not_ using AI to prepare for an interview is mistake, putting you at a major disadvantage (and there are plenty of honest ways to use it).

As an interviewer, I'm not testing for things AI is likely to help you with. I want to know how you are going to do the job, and experience first-hand how you collaborate in our shared profession.

You can practice with AI if you want, but it is definitely not necessary. I would much rather have someone say "I don't know that one" (and have hired many people who did), rather than have someone provide some content ChatGPT gave them the day before.

Re: Interviewing a software engineer who prepared with AI

#196

Post by roguecoder »

enasterosophes wrote: post #173
Aurornis wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

People who stayed long enough adjusted, but it didn't mean they were cold-hearted. They just realized that there was more to the story that they saw. The real challenge was when recent hires would see it and get spooked. One person would get fired and then two people around them would panic and start looking for other jobs. Several people panicked and jumped right back into their previous jobs. It was also tough when…

I feel like we're working at the same company. Not just this comment but your others on the same topic. I've seen all the exact same mistakes over the last year. The company wants to grow fast so hires quickly, but then the people hired quickly underperform, so then they're fired quickly, but firing people quickly results in fear, grief and guilt for everyone who hasn't been fired "this time". The top talent never fe…

Yikes!

That sounds like a vicious cycle: when people are stressed out, they are less likely to be able to learn successfully, setting them up to under-perform, get fired and then further stress out everyone else around them.

Cortisol has never improved a line of code.

Doing an explicit probationary period could at least reassure people who have been there longer, but it seems like it would be hard to regain trust at that point. The company should probably be praying its employees are unionizing behind the scenes & can save them from the mess they are making.

Re: Interviewing a software engineer who prepared with AI

#197

Post by roguecoder »

Arwill wrote: post #143
esafak wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It definitely did change with AI. Imposters are becoming harder to detect, at a cost to the company.

Interviewing has also become harder too. You try to search the net during the interview, because you forgot the name of a thing, and the interviewer will assume you are running with an AI chat, and are cheating the interview.

Looking things up on Google without being transparent to the interviewer was always cheating the interview.

Re: Interviewing a software engineer who prepared with AI

#198

Post by eikenberry »

donnachangstein wrote: post #181
eikenberry wrote: post #126

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, but ignoring their disabilities and saying to just learn to do better is not good enough. It is no different from telling a deaf person to learn to hear with their other sense, it doesn't make sense as their disability is what prevents it. People do need to be able to interact with other people, it just doesn't work like it does with non-neurodivergent people. It takes an effort on both sides. Quit putting it all…

[flagged]

Sorry for the offense, it is hard coming up with analogies that don't offend someone. Should probably just have left it out.

But neurodivergense is not just a lack of social skills. Painting it this way is one of the reasons people don't understand it and act with bias against those suffering from it. It is a disability and is recognized by the ADA.

Re: Interviewing a software engineer who prepared with AI

#199

Post by umbra07 »

Foofoobar12345 wrote: post #134

We get a few thousand fresh grads applying to us each year. It’s practically impossible to interview every one of them. At the same time, any sort of coding assignment we give is easily defeated by AI—so that’s not useful either and there are very few signals there. What we do instead is send out a test - something like a mental ability test - with hundreds of somewhat randomized questions. Many of these are highly v…

when you say "visual questions" - are you referring to questions in the style of Mensa/gifted tests?

https://www.reddit.com/media?url=https%3A%2F%2Fpreview.redd....

Re: Interviewing a software engineer who prepared with AI

#200

Post by donnachangstein »

niccl wrote: post #187
donnachangstein wrote: post #182

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Nearly every large company I've interviewed with would comply with a reasonable accommodation request for a legitimate disability e.g. providing a deaf person the interview questions on paper or even having an ASL interpreter present. In fact many mention it up front on the screening call before any questions are asked.

> Nearly every large company I've interviewed with would comply with a reasonable accommodation request for a legitimate disability so neuro divergence isn't a legitimate disability?

> so neuro divergence isn't a legitimate disability?

It doesn't really matter if it is or isn't, if being able to function well around other humans is a job requirement, as it often is in technical occupations. Why do you think behavioral questions are often asked during interviews?

For the same reason someone who requires a wheelchair could not reasonably be expected to be a firefighter, or a blind person be a pilot or bus driver, regardless of any accommodation provided.

Post reply on HN