[deleted]
Anthropic: "Applicants should not use AI assistants"
391–400 of 419 posts
Re: Anthropic: "Applicants should not use AI assistants"
#392Earlier 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…
> Why should anyone be honest when it goes entirely unappreciated and unrewarded? This is a good example of the attitude that I'm describing. Your question is close to an unthinkable culture shock to me. In my values and ethics, honesty isn't transactional. It's not something you practice because you expect the same back. It's not something that you regulate and only provide to others that meet some moral bar that yo…
It depends on context. Imagine you're playing poker or some other game where being deceptive gives you an advantage. Do you tell the other poker players your hand because Honesty is the ethically right thing to do? You wouldn't win many games. On the other end of the spectrum are your dealings with your own friends and family. You're expected to be honest with them. I'm not going to try to place the job hunt anywhere particular on this spectrum, but surely it's somewhere in between.
Re: Anthropic: "Applicants should not use AI assistants"
#393Earlier quoted context omitted.
> AI made your homework? Guess what, the homework is a proxy for your talent, and it didn't make your talent. At least in theory that’s not what homework is. Homework should be exercises to allow practicing whatever technique you’re trying to learn, because most people learn best by repeatedly doing a thing rather than reading a few chapters of a book. By applying an LLM to the problem you’re just practicing how to u…
What if you use it to get unstuck from a problem? Then come back and learn more about what you got stuck on. That seems like responsible use.
If you use it in that way then fine. I suspect both you and I knew that’s not what the GP meant though.
Re: Anthropic: "Applicants should not use AI assistants"
#394Earlier quoted context omitted.
> yes, this is cited on similar right-wing comedy shows, and individuals on the right believe it Can you give an example? Of course you can find 2 people in the US who believe it, and they held 2 comedy shows where it was said, and it's technically true, but I don't think I've ever seen anything like this said.
I don't log all comedy shows I see, so I can't provide a citation off-hand, but I've heard it plenty of times. However, to see consequences, I might start by reading executive orders: https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/2025/01/prot... And follow the trail back to how they got there. https://www.breitbart.com/education/2022/07/07/aclu-national... You can look around. You'll see many other articles like th…
> I don't log all comedy shows I see
I don't see the point of this snark. If you don't have any examples of what you're saying, why reply at all?
Re: Anthropic: "Applicants should not use AI assistants"
#395Earlier 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…
> Why should anyone be honest when it goes entirely unappreciated and unrewarded? This is a good example of the attitude that I'm describing. Your question is close to an unthinkable culture shock to me. In my values and ethics, honesty isn't transactional. It's not something you practice because you expect the same back. It's not something that you regulate and only provide to others that meet some moral bar that yo…
>In my values and ethics, honesty isn't transactional. It's not something you practice because you expect the same back.
Nor in mine, I'd like to be honest 100% of the time. Unfortunately, we don't live in a perfect world, and practicing morality usually just opens you up to be exploited and stepped on. It doesn't mean you need to be a shitty person, but you also shouldn't be a doormat.
Bad people don't play by the rules. If the good people let them they will take over. The only solution is for everyone to break the rules.
Re: Anthropic: "Applicants should not use AI assistants"
#396Earlier 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…
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…
> As a result he'd get frustrated and had bouts of absenteeism next, because there wasn't any string of rewards and little victories there but just listless poking in the mud.
So as a mentor, you totally talked directly with them about what excites them, tied it to their work, encouraged them to talk about their frustrations openly, helped them develop resilience by showing them towards setbacks are part of the process, and helped give them a sense of purpose and see how their work contributes to a bigger picture, to directly address the side effects of being a human with emotions which could have happened regardless of the tool they used, and didn't just let them flounder because of your personal feelings about a particular tool they used, right? Or do you only mentor winners, and you've never had a mentee hit a wall before LLMs were invented and never had to help anyone through some of the impacts from emotional lows that an immature intern might need help from a mentor to work through.
Re: Anthropic: "Applicants should not use AI assistants"
#397Earlier quoted context omitted.
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…
Your scenario _sounds_ convincing, but does it really work? Surely an attacker has a massive advantage in the element of surprise. If you see them coming (short of some sophisticated surveillance system), it's because they were impatient.
Or I have a dog.
Re: Anthropic: "Applicants should not use AI assistants"
#398Earlier quoted context omitted.
> 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…
My guess is it's more due to insurance at the venue. I don't know who pays in those situations, but I would imagine they require "no guns" posted and announced. And if there is any form of gunshot injury they have very strong teeth to dodge the claim.
The truth is that you can carry concealed at the NRA convention. It's a myth that they don't allow guns there.
The Secret Service disallows normal people to have guns in the same room where their protectees are speaking. If you want to watch one of the speeches and stay armed, there are other conference rooms / ballrooms with big monitors set up. Many attendees take advantage of this offer.
Re: Anthropic: "Applicants should not use AI assistants"
#399Earlier quoted context omitted.
If the company is doing behavioral Q&A interviews, I hope they're getting as many bad applicants as possible. Adding a load of pseudo-science to the already horrible process of looking for a job is definitely not what we need. I'll never submit myself to pseudo-IQ tests and word association questions for a job that will 99.9% of the time ask you to build CRUD applications. The lengths that companies go to avoid doing…
I think there's a misunderstanding here. I just want to talk to the applicant and see what they think about working with designers, their thoughts on learning golang as a javascript developer, or how they've handled a last minute "high priority" project.
I assumed you meant behavioral interviews where companies try to "match" you with personality types through word association and other questions. Pseudo-science that I've seen used in multiple supposed tech companies.
When I did hiring, the questions you're referring to were normal interview questions. I had never categorized them as behavioral, but I might be ignorant to the slang.
Answering those kind of questions with AI sounds... absurd? Heh, I guess I'm not sure how you gain anything from AI answering those. Maybe time if you're automating everything? Still, I'd ask those questions in a video call not through email as they're a great opportunity to learn about the person in front of you.
Re: Anthropic: "Applicants should not use AI assistants"
#400Earlier quoted context omitted.
Well, they probably aren't permitted to smoke tobacco indoors. I honestly fail to see even the irony. "Company that makes hammers doesn't want you to use hammers all the time". It's a tool. But if I squint, I _can_ see a mean-spirited "haha, look at those hypocrites" coming from people who enjoy tearing others down for no particular reason.
"Company that makes hammers for nailing wood together doesn't want candidates to use hammers during their wood-nailing test."
That makes no sense. It would rather be something like this, which actually makes sense:
> Company that makes hammers for nailing wood together doesn't want candidates to use hammers during their hammer-making test.