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

331–340 of 419 posts

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

#331

Post by Daub »

gameshot911 wrote: post #239
Daub wrote: post #135

Half way through a recent interview it became very apparent that the candidate was using AI. This was only apparent in the standard 'why are you interested in working here?' Questions. Once the questions became more AI resistant the candidate floundered. There English language skills and there general reasoning declined catastrophically. These question had originally been introduced to see see how good the candidate…

>There English language skills... declined catastrophically. Let he who is without sin...

Point taken

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

#332

Post by lolinder »

latexr wrote: post #166
radu_floricica wrote: post #115

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 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…

You're wrapping all the AI companies up in a single box, but:

* Most of the AI you get shoved down your throat is by the providers of services you use, not the AI companies.

* Among the AI companies, Anthropic in particular has had a very balanced voice that doesn't push for using AI where it doesn't belong. Their marketing page can barely be called that [0]. Their Claude-specific page doesn't mention using it for writing at all [1].

You seem to be committing the common fallacy of treating a large and disparate group of people and organizations as a monolith and ascribing cognitive dissonance where what you're actually seeing is diversity of opinion.

[0] https://www.anthropic.com/

[1] https://www.anthropic.com/claude

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

#333

Post by belter »

latexr wrote: post #166
radu_floricica wrote: post #115

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 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…

Either than glorified template generators, real professional software developers are only using coding assistants because it's being shoved down their throats: https://youtu.be/H_DBqWI8hJw?t=2072

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

#334

Post by shigawire »

bayindirh wrote: post #196
radu_floricica wrote: post #115

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…

> 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. Sorry, the thought process of thinking that using an LLM for a job application, esp. for a field which requests candid input about one's motivation is accep…

The application process feels arbitrary and antagonistic to many. If that was how one felt, there would be little reason not to game the system.

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

#335

Post by volleygman180 »

jusssi wrote: post #222
passwordoops wrote: post #215

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

A brewery telling their employees to not drink the product while at work?

It'd be more analogous if it were a brewery telling interviewees not to drink during the interview

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

#336

Post by mikepurvis »

imchillyb wrote: post #299
numbsafari wrote: post #209

Earlier quoted context omitted.

These are the same people that insist we arm elementary school teachers and expect those teachers to someday pull the trigger on a child instead of having proper gun laws. There is no irony.

When have gun laws ever stopped a shooting? When have criminals EVER followed law, code, rules, or even a suggestion from their fellow citizens? Believing laws deter criminals is almost criminally insane and beggars all logic. After all of the accumulated evidence against your belief, you still believe laws deter criminality. The death penalty doesn’t deter criminals. How could words possibly have an effect?

Because most of gun safety is not actually about criminals; it’s about regular people with legal firearms becoming involved in crimes of passion, tragic accidents, and suicides.

America is the worst industrialized country for gun deaths because the guns are present to enable those things to happen. Countless studies show that the key to reducing gun deaths is not more training, more “good guys”, or whatever else — it’s simply having fewer gun households period.

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

#337

Post by LeapingLennie »

toolz wrote: post #306
numbsafari wrote: post #209

Earlier quoted context omitted.

These are the same people that insist we arm elementary school teachers and expect those teachers to someday pull the trigger on a child instead of having proper gun laws. There is no irony.

If you think proper gun laws would keep guns away from evil people in the US, please explain to me why the war against illegal drugs in the US has been losing since the day it started. Sure, some places in the world can successfully limit gun access. Those places aren't close and even bordered by the most active cartels in the world. Just as a fun thought exercise, consider that to grow the plant necessary to produce…

Regarding the drugs vs guns comparison, I bet you'd find that every country that has implemented reasonably effective gun control still has thriving illicit drug markets. Australia is just as zealous at persecuting the drug war as the US but continues to fail at that whereas gun crime is very low.

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

#338

Post by bayindirh »

shigawire wrote: post #334
bayindirh wrote: post #196

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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. Sorry, the thought process of thinking that using an LLM for a job application, esp. for a field which requests candid input about one's motivation is accep…

The application process feels arbitrary and antagonistic to many. If that was how one felt, there would be little reason not to game the system.

I believe in playing the long game, making moves benefiting the short term are unwise choices for the longer term.

Of course, we're in a free world. People are free to do what they wish, and face the consequences, of course.

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

#339

Post by lolinder »

latexr wrote: post #191
xnorswap wrote: post #145

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm with you, I'm very surprised by the amount arguments which boil down to, "Well I can cheat and get away with it, so therefore I should cheat". I have read that people are getting more selfish[1], but it still shocks me how much people are willing to push individualism and selfishness under the guise of either, "Well it's not illegal" or "Well, it's not detectable". I think I'm just very much out of tune with the…

> I think I'm just very much out of tune with the zeitgeist, because I can't imagine not going along with what's a polite request not to use AI. No, what you are is ignoring the context. This request comes from a company building, promoting, and selling the very thing they are asking you not to use. Yes, asking you not to use AI is indeed a polite request. It is one you should respect. “The zeitgeist” has as much peo…

Why does the company that's asking change the analysis here? Shouldn't they know better than anyone the limitations of their product?

Are you implying that Anthropic specifically pushes for their models to be used inappropriately as long as they're not the victims of that inappropriate use? Because I haven't seen that at all with Anthropic, they've been consistently the most subdued and reserved AI company out there, barely marketing their products at all and when they do, doing so very carefully.

Your reactions in this thread are understandable as reactions against the oversaturation of AI, but it's not really fair to paint all of the companies with the same brush when Anthropic exists to be a foil to Altman's irresponsible push for saturation.

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

#340

Post by cedws »

xnorswap wrote: post #145
radu_floricica wrote: post #115

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'm with you, I'm very surprised by the amount arguments which boil down to, "Well I can cheat and get away with it, so therefore I should cheat". I have read that people are getting more selfish[1], but it still shocks me how much people are willing to push individualism and selfishness under the guise of either, "Well it's not illegal" or "Well, it's not detectable". I think I'm just very much out of tune with the…

>I'm with you, I'm very surprised by the amount arguments which boil down to, "Well I can cheat and get away with it, so therefore I should cheat".

Have you seen the job market? Companies will treat you like garbage through the interview process, make you jump through pointless hoops, and then even if you get the job you can be laid off at any moment because of arbitrary reasons the CEO made up to get their bonus.

Why should anyone be honest when it goes entirely unappreciated and unrewarded? I can completely understand why people would cheat. When companies stop treating workers like garbage then they deserve honesty.

Post reply on HN