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

221–230 of 731 posts

Re: Interviewing a software engineer who prepared with AI

#221

Post by re-thc »

donnachangstein wrote: post #179
eikenberry wrote: post #107

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You are right about hiring not being that much different but your prognostications are way off IMO. > - people are probably going to have to fly out for interviews, again. Fly where? Many companies don't have offices anymore. > - awkward and/or neurodivergent people are going to have to learn social skills again. Ahh... the age old, "just do better" position for neurodivergent people. Classic bigotry. > - And yeah, y…

> Classic bigotry. Hiring is all about finding the best candidate. If you find you cannot function sitting in conference room with three other people for an hour, there is a 100% chance there is a better candidate suited for the role, even if his/her technical skills are less than yours. Jobs have soft skill requirements, and there is nothing bigoted about that.

> If you find you cannot function sitting in conference room with three other people for an hour, there is a 100% chance there is a better candidate suited for the role, even if his/her technical skills are less than yours.

This assumes that was the job? What if the job never talks or sits in a room with anyone?

> Hiring is all about finding the best candidate.

Then what is leet code about?

Re: Interviewing a software engineer who prepared with AI

#222

Post by isbvhodnvemrwvn »

roguecoder wrote: post #133
roguecoder wrote: post #127

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You assume we aren't going to end up wearing them daily in order to get promotions. The same elitist power trip that drove RTO is also likely to produce the "dress like us & be rewarded" dynamics that push for conformity.

In more detail, in a glutted market with an unknown percentage of fakers, companies look for costly signals they can use to sort. This particular signal also indicates a willingness to set aside one's individual ego in order to assimilate in the workplace, which is especially valuable to the companies demanding developers abandon good sense in order to push AI adoption. If we want that signals to not be "a suit", it…

Which highest paying dev jobs do you have in mind?

Re: Interviewing a software engineer who prepared with AI

#223

Post by motorest »

eikenberry wrote: post #107
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…

You are right about hiring not being that much different but your prognostications are way off IMO. > - people are probably going to have to fly out for interviews, again. Fly where? Many companies don't have offices anymore. > - awkward and/or neurodivergent people are going to have to learn social skills again. Ahh... the age old, "just do better" position for neurodivergent people. Classic bigotry. > - And yeah, y…

> Ahh... the age old, "just do better" position for neurodivergent people. Classic bigotry.

I think you're too eager to throw personal attacks on those who raise valid points that are you feel are uncomfortable to address.

You should be aware that engineering is a social activity that requires hard skills. In any project that employs more than one person, you need to be able to interact with others. This means being able to effectively address and interact with others around you.

If you give anyone a choice, anyone at all, on who they work with, they will of course favor those who they are able to effectively interact with.

This is not bigotry, is it?

Re: Interviewing a software engineer who prepared with AI

#224

Post by root_axis »

eikenberry wrote: post #198
donnachangstein wrote: post #181

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[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.

I think the tension comes from the fact that the term "neurodivergent" doesn't have a specific clinical definition, it's a catch all term that is often used in a colloquial manner that lacks a meaningful diagnosis behind it.

Typically, in a context where practical accomodations are being discussed one would want to address specific needs. A person with dyslexia isn't going to need the same accomodations as someone with ADHD, for example

Re: Interviewing a software engineer who prepared with AI

#225

Post by motorest »

re-thc wrote: post #221
donnachangstein wrote: post #179

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Classic bigotry. Hiring is all about finding the best candidate. If you find you cannot function sitting in conference room with three other people for an hour, there is a 100% chance there is a better candidate suited for the role, even if his/her technical skills are less than yours. Jobs have soft skill requirements, and there is nothing bigoted about that.

> If you find you cannot function sitting in conference room with three other people for an hour, there is a 100% chance there is a better candidate suited for the role, even if his/her technical skills are less than yours. This assumes that was the job? What if the job never talks or sits in a room with anyone? > Hiring is all about finding the best candidate. Then what is leet code about?

> This assumes that was the job? What if the job never talks or sits in a room with anyone?

That's perfectly fine. Some coding jobs also don't require deep knowledge on data structures. Each company and project has its own requirements.

This does not reject the value of soft skills and being able to interact with other people.

You can also frame this from another perspective. How far should a hiring manager go to accommodate antisocial and straight out toxic people? Does an eggregious backstabber have the right to advance in hiring processes just because others found him unpleasant to work with?

Re: Interviewing a software engineer who prepared with AI

#226

Post by donnachangstein »

root_axis wrote: post #224
eikenberry wrote: post #198

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I think the tension comes from the fact that the term "neurodivergent" doesn't have a specific clinical definition, it's a catch all term that is often used in a colloquial manner that lacks a meaningful diagnosis behind it. Typically, in a context where practical accomodations are being discussed one would want to address specific needs. A person with dyslexia isn't going to need the same accomodations as someone wi…

Accommodations usually (but not always) require diagnosis or confirmation by a doctor or other medical professional, and the law affords companies this discretion before granting one, whereas nonspecific 'neurodivergence' is often self-diagnosed.

All this aside, if you have e.g. crippling anxiety such that you can't make it through an interview unaided, you probably won't be successful in that job, whatever it is. Whereas a deaf person or someone in a wheelchair would have no long-term problem.

Re: Interviewing a software engineer who prepared with AI

#227

Post by siva7 »

jaredklewis wrote: post #110
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. Others have already commented on this, but do you work in tech? IME getting interviewed by directors and even VPs in t-shirts is the norm. I’ve worn jeans to work my whole career. If anything, I think people in tech have a strong prejudice against people in suits (ie “obviously this person isn’t a real software engineer, they’re wearing a suit.”) Anyway, probably not g…

I wouldn't take that advice seriously. Suit in tech would be awkward (even for most mgmt roles). Tech pioneered the concept that you don't need a suit to get the pay of a suit. You can be yourself.

Re: Interviewing a software engineer who prepared with AI

#228

Post by ghaff »

gwbas1c wrote: post #156
ghaff wrote: post #139

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The first part sounds like what I’d expect a serious candidate to do. Didn’t you look at the questions we sent you? The second part sounds like areal curveball unless you made it clear that the questions sent out were only representative/samples of what you’d ask.

The candidate wasn't supposed to know the questions in advance. > The second part sounds like areal curveball That was the point. The candidate wasn't supposed to know the questions in advance. Once the candidate can practice / memorize, there's no way to evaluate the candidate.

That was not clear from your original comment. I read it as the company gave them the questions to presumably think about/prep.

Re: Interviewing a software engineer who prepared with AI

#229

Post by gregncheese »

I am in the process of recruiting a software engineer. You're on spot when saying "ask about human experience".

To add to your experience, I became increasingly suspicious of the "perfect fit" resumes. it's insane how so many people just put the right keywords. I think it might work to pass in larger companies where HR use automated systems to triage applicants.

Re: Interviewing a software engineer who prepared with AI

#230

Post by highwaylights »

neilv wrote: post #11

Potentially important side points, since not everyone knows, and we don't want anyone to learn a mistake by example: 1. Don't use blur to redact documents. Whatever blur was used can probably be reversed. 2. Don't try to hide the identity of someone you're talking about by redacting a few details on their resume. With the prevalence of public and private resume databases, that's probably easy to match up with a name.

There’s a few red flags here on the hiring side too.

I’ve given a lot of interviews, candidates will always try to come up with the best story as an answer to your question because “I can’t think of an example” is not an acceptable answer. It’s a demand you’re placing on them.

Also having experience puffed up on a resume happens around 100% of the time. The point of the interview is to figure out how much real relevant experience the candidate has.

OP was right to end the interview as they were an unprepared candidate and a bad fit, but low-key threatening someone with “word gets around” who’s trying to find a job and probably starting to panic about not having one doesn’t make him the good guy in this story that he thinks it does.

OP could have just told them not to use AI in future, but even that’s unnecessary as the lesson’s already been learned.

(I’ve also noticed that towards the end of the post OP mentions this, but it doesn’t line up with the actual call as described unfortunately)

Post reply on HN