Live data from Hacker News

Anthropic: "Applicants should not use AI assistants"

simonwillison.net

211–220 of 419 posts

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

#211

I'll be the contrarian and say that I don't find anything wrong with this, and if I were a candidate I'd simply take this as useful information for the application process. They do encourage use of AI, but they're asking nicely to write my own texts for the application - that's a reasonable request, and I'd have nothing against complying. sshine reply above is coming from a very conflictual mindset. "Can I still use…

I also don't find anything wrong with their stance. Ironic, sure, but I think to judge someone they need to have filters and in this case, the filter is someone who is able to communicate without AI assistance.

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

#212
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…

Spot on. I'm not A Programmer(TM), but I have dabbled in a lot of languages doing a lot of random things.

Sometimes I have qwen2.5-coder:14b whip up a script to do some little thing where I don't want to spend a week doing remedial go/python just to get back to learning how to write boilerplate. All that experience means I can edit it easily enough because recognition kicks in and drags the memory kicking and screaming back into the front.

I quickly discovered it was essentially defaulting to "absolute novice." No error handlers, no file/folder existence checking, etc. I had to learn to put all that into the prompt.

>> "Write a python script to scrape all linked files of a certain file extension on a web page under the same domain as the page. Follow best practices. Handle errors, make strings OS-independent, etc. Be persnickety. Be pythonic."

Here's the output: https://gist.github.com/kyefox/d42471893de670a2a4179482d3c8b...

I'm far from an expert and my memory might be foggy, but that looks like a solid script. I can see someone with less practice doing battle with debuggers trying the first thing that comes out without all the extra prompting hitting errors and not having any clue.

For example: I wrote a thing that pulled a bunch of JSON blobs from an API. Fixing the "out of handles" error is how I learned about file system and network default limits on open files and connections, and buffering. Hitting stuff like that over and over was educational and instilled good habits.

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

#213
post #203
post #166

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I don't find anything wrong with this It’s not about being wrong, it’s about being ironic. We have LLMs shoved down our throats as this new way to communicate—we are encouraged to ask them to make our writing “friendlier” or “more professional”—and then one of the companies creating such a tool asks the very people most interested in it to not use it for the exact purpose we’ve been told it’s good at. They are aski…

> It reminded me of the time Roy Wood Jr visited a pro-gun rally where they argued guns make people safe, while simultaneously asking people to not carry guns because they were worried about safety. The cognitive dissonance is worth pointing out. Well, no. It's irony, but it's only cognitive dissonance in a comedy show which misses the nuance. Most pro-gun organizations are heavily into gun safety. The message is tha…

Huge miss on the gun analogy. The likes of NRA are pushing for 50-state constitutional carry. Everyone has a gun on their person with no licensing requirements. Yet at the NRA conference they ban guns.

There’s probably actually some other hidden factor though, like the venue not allowing it.

Edit: FWIW those late night TV shows are nothing but rage bait low brow “comedy” that divides the country. But the above remains true.

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

#214
The goal of an interview is to assess talent. AI use gets in the way of that. If the goal were only to produce working code, or to write a quality essay, then sure use AI. But arguing that misunderstands the point of the interview process.

Disclaimer: I work at Anthropic but these views are my own.

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

#215

I'll be the contrarian and say that I don't find anything wrong with this, and if I were a candidate I'd simply take this as useful information for the application process. They do encourage use of AI, but they're asking nicely to write my own texts for the application - that's a reasonable request, and I'd have nothing against complying. sshine reply above is coming from a very conflictual mindset. "Can I still use…

I agree with your sentiment. But coming from a generative AI company that says "career development" and "communication" are among their two most popular use cases... That's like a tobacco company telling employees they are not permitted to smoke tobacco

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

#216
post #85

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I strongly agree with this comment. Anecdotal evidence time! I'm an experienced dev (20 years of C++ and plenty of other stuff), and I frequently work with younger students in a mentor role, e.g. I've done Google Summer of Code three times as a mentor, and am also in KDE's own mentorship program. In 2023/24, when ChatGPT was looming large, I took on a student who was of course attempting to use AI to learn and who wa…

What about people who don't have access to a mentor? If not AI then what is their option? Is doing tutorials on your own a good way to learn?

Mostly by reading a good book to get the fundamentals down, then taking on a project to apply the knowledge and supplement the gap with online ressource. There are good books and nice open source projects out there. You can get far with these by just studying them with determination. Later you can go on the theoretical and philosophical part of the field.

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

#217

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Let me give you an example from yesterday. I was learning tailwind and had a really long class attribute on a div which I didn't like. I wanted to split it and found a way to do it using my JavaScript framework (the new way to do it was suggested by deepseek). When I started writing by hand the list of classes in the new format copilot gave me an auto complete suggestion after I wrote the first class. I pressed tab a…

Remember though that lazyness, as I learned in computing, is kinda "doing something later": you might have pushed the change/fix faster than your senior fellow programmer, but you still need to review and test that change right? Maybe the change you're talking about was really trivial and you just needed to refresh your browser to see a trivial change, but when it's not, being lazy about a change will only gets you s…

The problem is he wasn't comfortable with my solution even though it was clearly faster and it could be tested instantly. It's a mental block for him and a lot of people in this industry.

I don't advocate blindly trusting LLMs. I don't either and of course test whatever it spits out.

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

#220
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…

> careful, responsible use is undetectable I think that's wishful thinking. You're underestimating how much people can tell about other people with the smallest amount of information. Humans are highly attuned to social interactions and synthetic responses are more obvious that you think.

I was a TA years ago, before there were LLMs one could use to cheat effectively. The professor and I still detected a lot of cheating. The problem was what to do once you've caught it? If you can't prove that it's cheating -- you can't cite the sources copied from -- is it worth the fight? The professor's solution was just to knock down their grades.

At that time just downgrading them was justifiable, because though they had copied in someone else's text, they often weren't competent to identify the text that was best to copy, and they had to write some of the text themselves to make it appear a coherent whole and they weren't competent to do that. If they had used LLMs we would have been stuck. We would be sure they had cheated but their essay would still be better than that of many/most of their honest peers who had tried to demonstrate relevant skill and knowledge.

I think there is no solution except to stop assigning essays. Writing long form text will be a boutique skill like flint knapping, harvesting wild tubers, and casting bronze swords. (Who knows, the way things are going these skills might be relevant again all too soon.)

Post reply on HN