11–20 of 111 posts
If you want to ineffectivly filter out most candidates just auto-reject everything that doesn’t arrive on a timestamp ending in 1.
That was REALLY weird to read. In reader mode the comparator in the first conditional was >=. But without reader mode it was just >.
Was that the trick? When copying the text, it is also >=, which is why an online search or AI tools probably give the wrong answer as the article asserts. If you correct the code then at least Claude gives the right answer.
result = result + x
// 5 0 5Instead of creating a test that specifically aims for those bullet points, many technical assessments end up with convoluted scaffolding when actually, only those key bullet points really matter.
Like the OP, I can usually tell if a candidate has the technical chops in just a handful of really straightforward questions for a number of technical domains.
That was REALLY weird to read. In reader mode the comparator in the first conditional was >=. But without reader mode it was just >.
That was REALLY weird to read. In reader mode the comparator in the first conditional was >=. But without reader mode it was just >.
I think it’s important to test these systems. Let some % of candidates who get this wrong through to the next stage and see what happens. Does failing this test actually correlate with being a bad fit later? If you want to ineffectivly filter out most candidates just auto-reject everything that doesn’t arrive on a timestamp ending in 1.
Wouldn't the correct answer be 5? result = result + x // 5 0 5
I'd love to know what logic path you followed to get 5 though!
That was REALLY weird to read. In reader mode the comparator in the first conditional was >=. But without reader mode it was just >.
Which is literally the point of the post. They have the = in >= at an opacity of 0 and a font-size of 1, which means it doesn't appear if styles are used properly. And their point is that candidates that copy/paste such trivial code into an AI/interpreter will get -11 because it just sees the >=. Though a gap in their process is that, as you mentioned, various reading modes also remove styles and likewise might see i…
Not just an "AI solver", a Python interpreter will also do it "wrong". The idea is that it's so simple that anyone qualified should be able to do it in their head, so they get the answer without the equals sign (but IMO a qualified applicant might also know it takes 5 seconds to run it in the repl and it'd be better to be correct than to use the fewest tools, or might be using a screen reader).