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

Anthropic: "Applicants should not use AI assistants"

simonwillison.net

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

101–110 of 419 posts

Re: Anthropic: "Applicants should not use AI assistants"

#101

Post by [deleted] »

0x1062 wrote: post #53
hollowturtle wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Can't disagree more. Talent is built and perfected upon thousands hours practice, LLMs just make you lazy. One thing people with seniority in the field don't realize, as I guess you are, is that LLMs don't help develop "muscle memory" in young practioners, it just make them miserable, often caged in an infinite feedback loop of bug fixing or trying to untangle a code mess. They may extract some value by using it for…

AI is a tool, and tool use is not lazy.

[deleted]

Re: Anthropic: "Applicants should not use AI assistants"

#102

Post by [deleted] »

GlacierFox wrote: post #61
hollowturtle wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Can't disagree more. Talent is built and perfected upon thousands hours practice, LLMs just make you lazy. One thing people with seniority in the field don't realize, as I guess you are, is that LLMs don't help develop "muscle memory" in young practioners, it just make them miserable, often caged in an infinite feedback loop of bug fixing or trying to untangle a code mess. They may extract some value by using it for…

You perfectly encapsulated my view on this. I'm utterly bewildered with people who take the opposing position that AI is essentially a complete replacement for the human mind and you'd be stupid not to fully embrace it as your thought process.

[deleted]

Re: Anthropic: "Applicants should not use AI assistants"

#104

Post by pinoy420 »

hollowturtle wrote: post #46
sshine wrote: post #15

> please do not use AI assistants during the application process. We want to understand your personal interest in Anthropic without mediation through an AI system, and we also want to evaluate your non-AI-assisted communication skills. There are two backwards things with this: 1) You can't ask people to not use AI when careful, responsible use is undetectable. It just isn't a realistic request. You'll have great repl…

Can't disagree more. Talent is built and perfected upon thousands hours practice, LLMs just make you lazy. One thing people with seniority in the field don't realize, as I guess you are, is that LLMs don't help develop "muscle memory" in young practioners, it just make them miserable, often caged in an infinite feedback loop of bug fixing or trying to untangle a code mess. They may extract some value by using it for…

You sound like the sort of person of old who “Why would you use the internet. Look in an encyclopaedia. ‘Google it’ is just lazy”

This trope is unbecoming of anyone sensible.

Re: Anthropic: "Applicants should not use AI assistants"

#105

Post by TypingOutBugs »

How do you guys do coding assessments nowadays with AI?

I don’t mind if applicants use it in our tech round but if they do I question them on the generated code and potential performance or design issues (if I spot any) - but not sure if it’s the best approach (I mostly hire SDETs so do a ‘easy’ dev round with a few easy/very easy leet code questions that don’t require prep)

Re: Anthropic: "Applicants should not use AI assistants"

#106

Post by logicchains »

eviks wrote: post #95
logicchains wrote: post #91

Earlier quoted context omitted.

When you go for a job as a forklift operator, nobody asks you to demonstrate how you can manually carry a load of timber.

You forgot a second sentence that completes the logic chain. Yes, "some tools are useful for some work", so what? That wasn't the original claim...

The claim was that it's lazy to use a tool as a substitute for learning how to do something yourself. But when the tool entirely obviates the need for doing the task yourself, you don't need to be able to do it yourself to do the job. It doesn't matter if a forklift driver isn't strong enough to manually carry a load, similarly once AI is good enough it won't matter if a developer doesn't know how to write all the code an AI wrote for them, what matters is that they can produce code that fulfills requirements, regardless of how that code is produced.

Re: Anthropic: "Applicants should not use AI assistants"

#107

Post by wongarsu »

miningape wrote: post #72
lukan wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, not everyone can really use AI to deliver something that works. And ultimately, this is what this is about, right? Delivering working products.

> No, not everyone can really use AI to deliver something that works "That works" is doing a lot of heavy lifting here, and really depends more on the technical skills of the person. Because, shocker, AI doesn't magically make you good and isn't good itself. Anyone can prompt an AI for answers, it takes skill and knowledge to use those answers in something that works. By prompting AI for simple questions you don't tr…

There is also a skill in prompting the AI for the right things in the right way in the right situations. Just like everyone can use google and read documentation, but some people are a lot better at it than others.

You absolutely can be a great developer who can't use AI effectively, or a mediocre developer who is very good with AI.

Re: Anthropic: "Applicants should not use AI assistants"

#108

Post by logicchains »

nialse wrote: post #12

It makes sense. Having the right people with the right merits and motivations will become even more important in the age of AI. Why you might ask? Execution is nothing when AI matures. Grasping the big picture, communicating effectively and possessing domain knowledge will be key. More roles in cognitive work will become senior positions. Of course you must know how to make the most out of AI, but it is more interest…

>communicating effectively

AI may not yet be as good an engineer as most coders, but it's already absolutely much better at written communication than the average sotware engineer (or at least more willing to put effort into it).

Re: Anthropic: "Applicants should not use AI assistants"

#109

Post by TeMPOraL »

eviks wrote: post #74
0x1062 wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

AI is a tool, and tool use is not lazy.

It is if the way to learn is doing it without a tool. Imagine using a robot to lift weights if you want to grow your own muscle mass. "Robot is a tool"

"Growing your own muscle mass" is an artificial goal that exists because of tools. Our bodies evolved under the background assumption that daily back-breaking labor is necessary for survival, and rely on it to stay in good operating conditions. We've since all but eliminated most of that labor for most people - so now we're forced to engage in otherwise pointless activity called "exercise" that's physically hard on purpose, to synthesize physical exertion that no longer happens naturally.

So obviously, your goal is strictly to exert your body, you have to... exert your body. However, if your goal is anything else, then physical effort is not strictly required, and for many people, for many reasons, is often undesirable. Hence machines.

Re: Anthropic: "Applicants should not use AI assistants"

#110

Post by lukan »

miningape wrote: post #72
lukan wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, not everyone can really use AI to deliver something that works. And ultimately, this is what this is about, right? Delivering working products.

> No, not everyone can really use AI to deliver something that works "That works" is doing a lot of heavy lifting here, and really depends more on the technical skills of the person. Because, shocker, AI doesn't magically make you good and isn't good itself. Anyone can prompt an AI for answers, it takes skill and knowledge to use those answers in something that works. By prompting AI for simple questions you don't tr…

"Put simply, using AI makes you worse at your job - precisely when you need to be better."

I don't follow.

Usually jobs require deliver working things. The more efficient the worker knows his tools(like AI), the more he will deliver -> the better he is at his job.

If he cannot deliver reliable working things, because he does not understand the LLM output, then he fails at delivering.

Post reply on HN