Anthropic: "Applicants should not use AI assistants" • Hacker News Board

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

#351

Post by coffeefirst » Mon, Feb 03, 2025, 2:11 PM UTC

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…

Yes. It's also a realistic view of what AI is actually good for.

I imagine they wouldn't have a problem with using AI to proofread your responses. That feels like fair game.

But... it can't tell you your own thoughts. It has no thoughts. And if it did they certainly aren't your thoughts.

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

#352

Post by xnorswap » Mon, Feb 03, 2025, 2:14 PM UTC

plagiarist wrote: post #347

cedws wrote: post #340

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". 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. Wh…

They sortof have a just world fallacy going on, a trap I often fall into. I wish it was. I think you're more accurate here, fuck them. The reality is I'm fortunate to be an office drone instead of treated as utterly disposable in a gig economy. And if someday AI gets good enough to replace me, I will be replaced.

If "They" here meant me, then far from it. I certainly don't subscribe to the Just World fallacy.

If you're only honest or ethical when you think you'll get some good back from it, then you aren't being honest at all, you're just doing what is convenient, even if you believe any reward is deferred, possibly all the way to a future existence entirely.

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

#353

Post by marcosdumay » Mon, Feb 03, 2025, 2:16 PM UTC

oneeyedpigeon wrote: post #140

Double_a_92 wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You can, but it would be pointless since it would just filter out some honest people.

But this is exactly what we already do. Most exams have a "no cheating" rule, even though it's perfectly possible to cheat. The point is to discourage people from doing so, not to make it impossible.

Sorry, but if you are completely unable to catch cheaters, then the point becomes to punish people that follows rules.

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

#354

Post by psb217 » Mon, Feb 03, 2025, 2:21 PM UTC

1GZ0 wrote: post #47

You wouldn't show up drunk to a job interview just because its at brewery, would you?

If getting drunk significantly increased my ability to appear competent then, yes, I would...

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

#355

Post by ecocentrik » Mon, Feb 03, 2025, 2:23 PM UTC

nertirs1 wrote: post #326

ecocentrik wrote: post #262

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't see the cognitive dissonance here. If a model was applying for a position with a cosmetics company, they might want to see what the blank canvas looks like. Being able to gauge a candidate's natural communication skills is highly useful. If you're an ineffective communicator, there's a good chance your comprehension skills are also deficient.

The same could be said about a lot of things, like being able to write a functional solution to a leet code puzzle on a black board in front of an audience. IMHO, an effective interview process should attempt to mimic the position for which a person is applying. Making a candidate jump through hoops is a bit disrespectful.

IMO the interview process should help the employer correctly identify qualified candidates. Respect for the candidates is important but some candidates should absolutely be prepared to jump through hoops.

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

#356

Post by Kye » Mon, Feb 03, 2025, 2:27 PM UTC

sbarre wrote: post #286

rmgk wrote: post #200

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Using faxes is much more streamlined than the more modern Scan, Email, Print process.

Only if you're starting with paper? Years back I worked somewhere where we had to PDF documents to e-fax them to a supplier. We eventually found out that on their end it was just being received digitally and auto-converted to PDF. It was never made paper.. So we asked if we could just email the PDF instead of paying for this fax service they wanted. They said no.

There was a comment here on HN, I think, that explained why enterprises spend so much money on garbage software. It turned out that the garbage software was a huge improvement on what they did before, so it was still a savings in time and money and easier than a total overhaul.

I wonder what horror of process and machinery the supplier used before the fax->PDF process.

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

#357

Post by Spivak » Mon, Feb 03, 2025, 2:42 PM UTC

blagie wrote: post #260

wepple wrote: post #213

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 remain…

> Everyone has a gun on their person with no licensing requirements. Yet at the NRA conference they ban guns. That's not what the NRA is pushing for, any more than there are Democrats pushing for mandatory sex changes for all kids (yes, this is cited on similar right-wing comedy shows, and individuals on the right believe it). Pushing for a right doesn't mean 100% of the population will exercise that right. And yes,…

I'm not entirely sure you picked the best example because the Democrats aren't pushing for that to be a right at all. It's certainly true that Republicans bought into the hysteria, my home state passed a bill banning it despite it having never once occurred and such a thing already going against the standards of care.

But Constitutional Carry does allow for anyone who can legally acquire a gun to be armed if they choose. I honestly don't mind this since basically anyone can get a concealed carry permit already and these bills just remove the paperwork and fees. I would love to see annual car registration done away with in the same manner, pointless busywork.

So if you're doing a bit on a comedy show or news program that's "what does $bill maximally allow for" then you do get everyone is armed in public without a permit (which again is fine I don't know why people care, this could already happen right now) but you don't get "every child gets a sex change."

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

#358

Post by exe34 » Mon, Feb 03, 2025, 2:50 PM UTC

Eisenstein wrote: post #325

exe34 wrote: post #174

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Failing for a bit, thinking hard and then somehow getting to the answer - for me it was usually tutorials, asking on stackoverflow/forums, finding a random example on some webpage. The fastest way for me to learn something new is to find working code or code that I can kick for a bit until it compiles/runs. Often I'll comment out everything and make it print hello world, and then from there try to figure out what the…

Why is modifying working code you didn't write better than having an AI help write code with you? Is it that the modified code doesn't run until you fix it? It still bypasses the 'hard won effort' criteria though?

I forgot to say, the aim is usually to integrate it into a bigger project that I'm writing by myself. The working code is usually for interfacing to libraries I didn't write - I could spend a year reading every line of code for a given library and understanding everything it does, and then realise it doesn't do what I want. The working code is to see what it can do first, or to kick it closer to what I want - only when I know it can do it will I spend the time to fully understand what's going on. Otherwise a hundred lifetimes wouldn't be enough to go through the amount freely available crapware out there.

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

#359

Post by hluska » Mon, Feb 03, 2025, 2:56 PM UTC

ben30 wrote: post #80

This application requirement really bothered me as someone who's autistic and dyslexic. I think visually, and while I have valid ideas and unique perspectives, I sometimes struggle to convert my visual thoughts into traditional spoken/written language. AI tools are invaluable to me - they help bridge the gap between my visual thinking and the written expression that's expected in professional settings. LLMs are essen…

I’m going to echo oneeyedpigeon - you changed my opinion completely. Minutes ago, I did not see a thing wrong with what Anthropic was doing. Reading your words completely flipped that.

This is exceptional writing and I appreciate your insight. Thanks for proving me wrong and giving me the chance to get closer to being right.

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

#360

Post by camgunz » Mon, Feb 03, 2025, 3:11 PM UTC

blagie wrote: post #344

knuppar wrote: post #304

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>And yes, most venues (as well as schools, government buildings, etc.) will not allow guns. If there's a security guard, police, or similar within spitting distance, there isn't a reasonable self-defence argument. Can you give me one example of a valid "reasonable self-defence argument"? Legit question.

The extreme scenario: I live in a home surrounded by miles of fields. There is no one within miles to hear me scream. Without a gun, anyone could come by my home, kill me, rob my home, and be gone before the police would even show up, if I even had a chance to call them. If I didn't call the police, they could literally move in and stay for months before anyone would notice. The reason this does not happen is because…

> The reason this does not happen is because everyone has a gun.

Probably not. The reason we're not permanently locked in a life or death battle against each other is that very few humans like committing violence. It's a pretty terrifying view of the world to think that all that's preventing someone from perpetrating a home invasion on you is the threat of violence.