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

281–290 of 731 posts

Re: Interviewing a software engineer who prepared with AI

#281

Post by tuvang »

_blk wrote: post #250
siva7 wrote: post #227

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

As I learned, you can also be yourself, never wear a suit on the job and still wear one for the interview. First impressions count. Once people know I can wear a suit they just don't seem to mind me in shorts anymore.. So I might have a social skill after all :D

First impressions do count but I think the above poster has a point, a suit can actually harm your chances in an environment where no one wears suits.

Re: Interviewing a software engineer who prepared with AI

#282

Post by ellen364 »

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.

I'm curious about this. When I've hired, I've always wondered how I can actually tell (a) what soft skills are required for the role and (b) whether a candidate has them.

People sometimes think that's a silly thing to ponder: it's obviously obvious! But at most places I've worked, we spend lots of time defining the technical skills required for a job and handwave the rest.

I guess people assume "they'll know it when they see it". But there's a lot of ambiguity. Parent comment suggests that being comfortable sitting in a conference room for an hour is an important part of their job. In some workplaces that would be an odd requirement. I've worked at places where the important thing was being able to go away and make progress on something for a few weeks.

I suspect there are people with autism reading these threads and feeling disheartened. It would be easy to leave with the impression that neurotypical people expect you to make all the effort and they won't try to meet you half way. Some workplaces are like that. But in all the talk about neurotypical vs neurodivergent, it's easy to forget that neurotypical people are a varied lot, just like neurodivergent people. Workplaces are a varied lot too.

Re: Interviewing a software engineer who prepared with AI

#283

Post by thaumasiotes »

throwaway2037 wrote: post #264
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…

In most highly developed countries, there is a probation period for 90+ days for new hires. During this period, you can be fired for any reason. It is not an expensive as people think to fire someone who deceived your hiring process. However, institution inertia is real. That said, I very much agree with your last paragraph. In the late 1990s and early 2000s, a lot of hiring was done this way in the US.

> In most highly developed countries, there is a probation period for 90+ days for new hires. During this period, you can be fired for any reason.

In an American context, this is generally true in 49 out of 50 states, except that the probation period covers the entire duration of your employment. The people who say firing is expensive are thinking about something else.

Re: Interviewing a software engineer who prepared with AI

#284

Post by sayamqazi »

ang_cire wrote: post #234
motorest wrote: post #223

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

> they will of course favor those who they are able to effectively interact with. This is not bigotry, is it? If "those who they are able to effectively interact with" ends up meaning only people who look, act, or believe like them, then yes it absolutely is.

Adding to your point. Why arent we saying that the "noraml" people are the ones bad at interacting with neurodivergents. Their supposed social skills are so limited that they can only work with people who act and behave like them.

Re: Interviewing a software engineer who prepared with AI

#285

Post by pjc50 »

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 industry is probably going to have to consider the concept of a "qualification", that is a test you take once and then present to employers rather than have each employer make up a different one.

I worry about the retreat to networks. I think it's an inevitable response to the rise of machine-generated fakes, that people are going to start strongly preferring to be physically next to someone talking to them simply in order to verify that they're real, not one of the billions of apparitions knocking on their virtual door. But it also pushes back to networks of preferred universities and preferred drinking societies within those universities. All of which have the opportunity to be little discriminatory clubs.

Re: Interviewing a software engineer who prepared with AI

#286

Post by throwaway290 »

DaSHacka wrote: post #275
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.

> 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. Everything you just said also applies to someone who's deaf, blind, or…

> Everything you just said also applies to someone who's deaf, blind, or physically impaired.

A blind person is not a good bus driver. A physically impaired person is not a good mover or yoga teacher. A deaf person is not a good session musician. A person who cannot function sitting in a meeting with 3 people for an hour is not a good employee where that is required. What makes the last one special compared to others? They can be a great yoga teacher/bus driver/session musician/mover, I just don't see controversy

Re: Interviewing a software engineer who prepared with AI

#287

Post by Lutger »

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…

Did you ever work with developers? Maybe if you hire for consultants in some industries some of this is relevant (I doubt it), but with social skills + suit part alone will make sure you miss out on a significant pool of talent.

I could even go further and say that NOT hiring anyone who shows up in a suit will give you better results than the other way around. You filter out a lot of career guys who are really poor programmers and will try to end up as mediocre middle management that way.

Re: Interviewing a software engineer who prepared with AI

#288

Post by deadbabe »

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…

No Computer Science degree = forget about it.

In the past we took a chance hiring people with non traditional backgrounds but now that everyone thinks they can do complex engineering with the help of AI, we need to know people have truly studied the fundamentals over a period of 4 years at a university.

Re: Interviewing a software engineer who prepared with AI

#289

Post by roenxi »

tuvang wrote: post #281
_blk wrote: post #250

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As I learned, you can also be yourself, never wear a suit on the job and still wear one for the interview. First impressions count. Once people know I can wear a suit they just don't seem to mind me in shorts anymore.. So I might have a social skill after all :D

First impressions do count but I think the above poster has a point, a suit can actually harm your chances in an environment where no one wears suits.

I'd want to see some actual hard evidence before I believed that. The usual way social cues work is they are devastatingly effective even if people claim they are not. Much like how most interviewers are honestly convinced that their approach is unbiased but in practice they tend to hire people who are like themselves.

My expectation is that turning up in a suit would get better results. The effect is probably smaller in hard-skill roles but I'd assume still present.

Re: Interviewing a software engineer who prepared with AI

#290

Post by Cthulhu_ »

Lutger wrote: post #287
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…

Did you ever work with developers? Maybe if you hire for consultants in some industries some of this is relevant (I doubt it), but with social skills + suit part alone will make sure you miss out on a significant pool of talent. I could even go further and say that NOT hiring anyone who shows up in a suit will give you better results than the other way around. You filter out a lot of career guys who are really poor p…

I knew some colleagues who were alright as developers (maybe over-eager, e.g. building a microservices architecture by themselves when that didn't actually solve the real problems the company had) who had a suit phase for some reason.
Post reply on HN