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

Flunking my Anthropic interview again

taylor.town

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

131–140 of 374 posts

Re: Flunking my Anthropic interview again

#132

Post by lisper »

switchbak wrote: post #130
lisper wrote: post #126

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, that's what makes it hard. You can't just fake it. It's is the same thing that makes acting hard. Good actors aren't faking it.

You can definitely fake it. Most people at $BIG_CORP aren't half as jovial and excited as they seem. Whatever, it's fine - we don't need to be perfectly authentic at all times, sometimes you can just go with the flow a little. Is "God actor" a term reserved for only the best actors? :P

> God actor

Oops.

Re: Flunking my Anthropic interview again

#134

Post by switchbak »

nkohari wrote: post #117
lisper wrote: post #111

> I can't turn my weird off That might be your problem right there. Deciding you can't do something is always a self-fulfilling prophecy. How hard have you tried? I learned to turn my weird off a long time ago. It wasn't easy. It took many years. It was painful at times. But I did it. If I can do it, you probably can too. P.S. You might want to think about whether or not turning your weird off is something you actual…

I like weird people. I think most creative people like weird people. If "weird" means you have idiosyncrasies, then yeah, all of us do. In my experience, once you get to know a person, you realize there is no such thing as "normal". Now if "weird" in this case actually means "kind of an asshole" then that's a different thing, and yeah, that's definitely worth working on.

"I spent so much of my life being an unlikable jerk" - so yeah, it sounds like that could be (somewhat?) true, or maybe they're just very self-critical.

I like "weird coffee people", and folks that are obsessed with fun hobbies. I'm not so into sociopaths though, so it depends on the kind of weird.

Re: Flunking my Anthropic interview again

#135

Post by Joel_Mckay »

Anthropic from a technology perspective does interesting work, but from a business perspective its long-term viability is unclear. LLM generated slop will unlikely make it through the valley of despair in the Gartner hype cycle.

Rule #3: popularity is not an indication of utility.

Rule #23: Don't compete to be at the bottom, as you just might actually win.

The fact is all employees that produce intangible assets look like a fiscal liability on paper. If you don't have project history in a given area, than managers quietly add training costs and retention issue forecasts on that hiring decision.

I found the dynamic range anecdote by Steve Jobs (a controversial figure) was rather accurate across many business contexts =3

https://youtu.be/TRZAJY23xio?feature=shared&t=2360

Re: Flunking my Anthropic interview again

#137

Post by surprisetalk »

mft_ wrote: post #87

> I can't turn my weird off Why not? If you have conscious insight into what behaviour is or isn't "weird" in a specific situation or environment, you absolutely can choose to turn it off, or at least damp it down. I'm not saying you should or shouldn't, and there's no judgement. But if you can identify it, you can choose.

Author here! I should say that I can't turn my weird off quickly and consistently :) The feedback loops in social situations are slow. I've been working really hard on my listening/people skills, but these things take time, and I'm probably just being too impatient

Re: Flunking my Anthropic interview again

#138

Post by switchbak »

reactordev wrote: post #124
margalabargala wrote: post #119

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Also, none of these companies will actually give you your purpose in life, your dream job will not make you whole:-) Some people really do find a whole lot of personal meaning from their work. And that's okay. It's their life. If someone is the sort of person who might find meaning working for Anthropic, they would find that meaning at a lot of other jobs as well. I think that's a better emssage; not that "you shal…

I get it, we all want to be somebody, but is the juice worth the squeeze? They may find a candidate that succeeds, they may not. In the end, it’s up to you to decide whether that kind of environment is for you. I also interviewed at a few AI startups and while difficult, I wasn’t impressed with them. They seem to be too high maintenance with little to no experience.

This is key: the OP seems to be putting them on a pedestal, but if Sturgeon's law holds (and I think it does) then a sizable percentage of what's happening there doesn't smell very good.
Post reply on HN