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

331–340 of 374 posts

Re: Flunking my Anthropic interview again

#331

Post by mft_ »

surprisetalk wrote: post #137
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

Fair answer - I shouldn't automatically apply my own situation/lessons to others. :)

I do wonder to what extent one could view it as a pattern recognition challenge, though. To an extent, what you wrote resonates with me: growing up, I was probably relatively "weird" compared to the norm of my peer-group, and yes, often either immediate feedback, or recognition of feedback sufficiently quickly, wasn't present.

But it was possible to learn, via reflection after the event. And after n awkward or painful reflections, I was able to analyse which aspects of my behaviour were judged negatively, and over time, those reflections embedded and I was able to slowly change my behaviour. And I never saw this as an 'act' or a 'mask' - I always saw it as a continual process of self-improvement, where the goal was to be better (according to the standards or expectations of the particular slice of the world I was part of at that time) - more sociable, funnier, a more engaging conversationalist, a better kinder friend or partner, whatever.

The (surprising?) positive flip-side to this approach is that as long as you have the right goals (and maybe role models) you can actually end up far more functional and able in many domains than your peers.

--

(I've often said privately that I see life as a continual process of self-improvement, and this absolutely wasn't something I got from parents, teachers, peers or books: it was these formative learning experiences that formed that private philosophy.)

Re: Flunking my Anthropic interview again

#332

Post by eszed »

latexr wrote: post #313
eszed wrote: post #189

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Hey! Good to meet a fellow artist. I made it to 40 before I sold out. You? One thing outsiders don't understand is that, for actors, auditioning IS the job. Getting cast, and working on a show, is a joy (some more than others, of course!), but the rest of your life is nothing, nothing but looking for work. The were two things that made that "it's all cool" shift happen for me. The first is that once I'd been in the i…

> I made it to 40 before I sold out. Do you mean you sold out in the arts or in the sense that you changed careers? If the former, I’d be curious to hear (well, read) the story since that’s not an admission one typically encounters.

I changed careers. Wrote a bit about it here:

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44699388

I never met a professional with a conceptual category of "selling out" within the industry. Scraping together any kind of living in the arts is a massive struggle, so everyone takes "money jobs" when they can get them. During my 10 or 12 years as a working actor I had two consecutive years during which my sole income was from performing, and maybe a couple of other other five or six month periods where I was able to drop restaurant (or whatever other) gigs for a tour. This was in the early-'oughts, and I'd have to look at my social security records to be sure, but my income during those years was somewhere around $30k. I was single, and really, really good at being poor.

By the way, that's like a 98th percentile result for an actor. Most people never come close to making a living, however meagre.

There's an old, old interview (maybe Michael Parkinson? Don't remember) with Joss Ackland - a wonderful mid-twentieth century British character actor, on stage and screen - where the interviewer asks him why the hell he did some crappy science fiction film, and Ackland says something like "that was 1962? Oh, yes. Well, my mother needed a new kitchen." No actor will ever fault him for that!

What does disappoint me is seeing actors with tremendous talent who take nothing but money jobs. I get why they do it - especially for the ones at the top of the commercial heap it'd be awfully hard to say 'no' to an easy gig that comes with a boatload of cash - but I can't help but feel sad that I'll never get to see them working at their best.

Even so, my response when I see a truly bad film is generally a shrug: "a lot of actors [and associated professionals / craft services] got paid." The artists among them will learn from even that experience, and many (many many) among them will invest that income back into doing work that they believe in.

Re: Flunking my Anthropic interview again

#333

Post by eszed »

incone123 wrote: post #309
eszed wrote: post #298

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's all a matter of perspective. My uncle once brought his kids to see a big show I was in, and afterwards said just what you did. I looked at him, genuinely surprised, and said something like "dude, you're a surgeon. If I screw up at work 2,000 people laugh at me, and forget about it five minutes later; if you screw up at work, someone dies . You really think I should be the one feeling nervous?" You're right about…

I once got an emergency call to a theatre where a fight scene mishap left an actress punched out cold. There's less opportunity for harm in entertainment relative to medicine but it does happen sometimes.

You're right, and oh my god: don't get me started on the abysmal safety record of theatres, particularly towards the non-union end of the scale. I never got a fight director credential, but I was competent, and served as fight captain on any number of shows. 1.) Unarmed fights are the most dangerous type of scene, but also the most likely to be treated cavalierly by people who don't know any better. 2.) There are safe ways to do (just about) everything. A company that can't afford to hire a qualified fight director shouldn't stage fight scenes. Period. End of story.

I've literally walked out of shows (as an audience member) where it's been clear that the actors are doing unsafe things, because I didn't want to see happen what you showed up to. Thanks for being there, and I hope that woman was OK.

Re: Flunking my Anthropic interview again

#334

Post by anktor »

user_7832 wrote: post #321
jimmar wrote: post #98

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> there is no information in a rejection. The most helpful job interview I had was when the interviewer broke script and just leveled with me about how I wasn't presenting myself well. There was a shared connection (our alma mater) that must have convinced him to be straight with me instead of hiding how poorly I was doing behind a mask. The HR handbooks say that you should never let a candidate know why they were no…

> If you're not getting offers, I strongly recommend that you find somebody you trust to do a mock interview. Let them critique your resume, cover letter, posture, awkwardness, lame handshake, etc. Slightly odd question but: what if it's the opposite of this? Interviews are almost never an issue. I would like to think (and have been told so too) that I'm both technically sharp and knowledgeable enough, and can commun…

Without any context of culture or country, just trying to be helpful: in my limited (Meaning, what you ask for (or how expensive you are perceived, if you have that strong resumee) for the industry you apply, may be too different and leading to limited access.

Sometimes I feel junior people have it easier (I felt like I did, personally) since the expense in salary is pretty limited compared to either other roles or more senior people

Re: Flunking my Anthropic interview again

#335

Post by user_7832 »

anktor wrote: post #334
user_7832 wrote: post #321

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> If you're not getting offers, I strongly recommend that you find somebody you trust to do a mock interview. Let them critique your resume, cover letter, posture, awkwardness, lame handshake, etc. Slightly odd question but: what if it's the opposite of this? Interviews are almost never an issue. I would like to think (and have been told so too) that I'm both technically sharp and knowledgeable enough, and can commun…

Without any context of culture or country, just trying to be helpful: in my limited ( Meaning, what you ask for (or how expensive you are perceived, if you have that strong resumee) for the industry you apply, may be too different and leading to limited access. Sometimes I feel junior people have it easier (I felt like I did, personally) since the expense in salary is pretty limited compared to either other roles or…

Thanks! However... I am very junior right now lol ((I have applied to both competitive as well as more niche firms fwiw, I expect there have been stronger resumes I've "lost to". Though, my degree isn't a "common" one even though it's actually very suitable.)

Re: Flunking my Anthropic interview again

#336

Post by names_are_hard »

SoftTalker wrote: post #258
swat535 wrote: post #253

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't know about you but the older I get, the less I take anything in life personal. I've come to realize that there are so many aspects of life that are not under one's control and shaking your fist gravity doesn't accomplish anything; even more so when it comes to business and professional relationships. One of my favorite quotes is from "Deuteronomy 18:13", or as the The Coen Brothers aptly put it: - "Receive wi…

Not that I’m religious but I looked up that verse and don’t see how the Coen Brothers got that message from it.

I looked it up as well, because I had a guess at which famous verse it was but didn't know it by chapter/verse.

The context of the verse, based on the surrounding verses, is that "simplicity with the Lord"[0] means accepting that what happens, or what will happen in the future, is from God and there's no need to try to figure out what will be out make sense of the uncertainty of life.

I think I can relate that to the GP's quote.

[0] translation to English my own, not sure what the language you saw was. Notably, the word used in the original Hebrew[1] can be translated as "simplicity" but also "wholeness" or "completeness". Maybe that works better? Also interestingly, in contemporary Hebrew, it means "naive"...

[1] תמים

Re: Flunking my Anthropic interview again

#337

Post by globnomulous »

The author writes "I respect [Anthropic's] approach to responsible AI adoption," Anthropic of course being the asswipes who published this turd[0] on university students' use of LLMs. It starts with the absolute gem:

> AI systems are no longer just specialized research tools: they’re everyday academic companions.

The article basically shrugs its shoulders at the problem of LLM-driven cheating and, to the best of my recollection, shows not a shred of honesty or willingness to face any of the real issues. Fuck Anthropic.

[0] https://www.anthropic.com/news/anthropic-education-report-ho...

Re: Flunking my Anthropic interview again

#338

Post by striking »

Der_Einzige wrote: post #193
striking wrote: post #122

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Faking normalcy can often make you more unattractive than being yourself. I suspect that people can sense when someone isn't being genuine about themselves.

Not true, and why "be yourself" has died as dating advice. Do not "be yourself" unless being yourself is attractive. Even "be the best version of yourself" doesn't work if you're a brony or some other socially unacceptable group This kind of shitty blue pill advice is why MAGA, the manosphere, etc are bigger than ever. The rise of fascism is walking on a grave of blue pills.

lol relax. I'm not saying people should never change or that they're all perfect the way they are. I'm saying the opposite: if you want to be an attractive, interesting person, and you're not that person yet, you need to spend the time and energy necessary to actually change rather than faking it. You don't have to drop your existing hobbies (e.g. being a brony is fine) but it's nice to also have a few others you can share with others (e.g. getting into running or music or something as well).

No, the real blue pill is pretending any of your culture war manosphere shit matters or wasting any time thinking about that, because every second you waste on that is a second you could've spent improving yourself.

Re: Flunking my Anthropic interview again

#339

Post by sitkack »

saagarjha wrote: post #307
htrp wrote: post #273

Earlier quoted context omitted.

All it takes is 1 candidate with an axe to grind and I guarantee you'll never give feedback again.

It's fine to build a better world until then.

Exactly. The lock analogy is flawed and a distraction. I made a local universe of how I think the world should be. I gave those people the respect I think we all deserve, and hopefully they stand up and do the same. Maybe they are in HR, or become a C-level and institute the same things.

When you comply in advance, you not only let "them" win, there isn't even a them here, just an idea of a possible threat. Fuck that. Anyone can sue for anything, you can't "do stuff so you won't get sued". Frankly, this is cowards take that lets an nebulous idea pollute your world.

We don't have to Joan of Arc or Don Quixote, we can just do the little stuff that changes culture in the direction we'd like to see it changed.

Humans are incredibly valuable across many many dimensions, not letting them know how they can improve is a massive waste and harmful to both parties.

Post reply on HN