41–50 of 111 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The logic results in 3 + 3 - 5 = 1, so it's not 5, sorry. I'd love to know what logic path you followed to get 5 though!
I did it in my head but got 4 (3 * 3 - 5), so I fail, too. Hopefully I'd be paying closer attention if I was actually applying for a job.
I got the right answer but it was so easy I went in with doubt I had done it right. Which I understand is my issue to work on, but if I were interviewing, I'd ask candidates to verbalize or write out their thought process to get a sense of who is overthinking or doubting themselves.
And if in your doubt you decided to run it through the interpreter to get the "real" answer, whoops, you're rejected.
That was REALLY weird to read. In reader mode the comparator in the first conditional was >=. But without reader mode it was just >.
Was that the trick? When copying the text, it is also >=, which is why an online search or AI tools probably give the wrong answer as the article asserts. If you correct the code then at least Claude gives the right answer.
Thus, if you get the wrong answer, you "cheated" (or used reader mode)
I think it’s important to test these systems. Let some % of candidates who get this wrong through to the next stage and see what happens. Does failing this test actually correlate with being a bad fit later? If you want to ineffectivly filter out most candidates just auto-reject everything that doesn’t arrive on a timestamp ending in 1.
This isn't a good methodology. To do your validation correctly, you'd want to hire some percentage of candidates who get it wrong and see what happens.
Your way, you're validating whether the test is informative as to passing rate in the next stage of your hiring process, not whether it's informative as to performance on the job.
(Related: the 'stage' model of hiring is a bad idea.)
What most interviews get wrong is that there are usually just a few "bullet points" that if you see them, you instantly know that the the candidate at least has the technical chops. Instead of creating a test that specifically aims for those bullet points, many technical assessments end up with convoluted scaffolding when actually, only those key bullet points really matter. Like the OP, I can usually tell if a candi…
One of the absolute hardest part of my business is really hiring qualified candidates, and it's really demoralizing and time consuming and unbelievably expensive. The best that I've managed to do is the same that pretty much every other business owner says... which is that I can usually (not always) filter out the bad candidates (along with some false negatives), and have some degree of luck in hiring good candidates (with some false positives).
What most interviews get wrong is that there are usually just a few "bullet points" that if you see them, you instantly know that the the candidate at least has the technical chops. Instead of creating a test that specifically aims for those bullet points, many technical assessments end up with convoluted scaffolding when actually, only those key bullet points really matter. Like the OP, I can usually tell if a candi…
Peeking at the source, it's just a zero-width div, which is not accomodating of people with disabilities. This might open you up to litigation if you disqualify a blind person on the grounds he gave the wrong answer 'using AI', when he might have just been answering the question his screen reader read out.
What most interviews get wrong is that there are usually just a few "bullet points" that if you see them, you instantly know that the the candidate at least has the technical chops. Instead of creating a test that specifically aims for those bullet points, many technical assessments end up with convoluted scaffolding when actually, only those key bullet points really matter. Like the OP, I can usually tell if a candi…
If you have a test that can identify a good candidate quickly then you have honestly struck gold and can genuinely use that to start your own company. I mean this with absolute sincerity. One of the absolute hardest part of my business is really hiring qualified candidates, and it's really demoralizing and time consuming and unbelievably expensive. The best that I've managed to do is the same that pretty much every o…
Peeking at the source, it's just a zero-width div, which is not accomodating of people with disabilities. This might open you up to litigation if you disqualify a blind person on the grounds he gave the wrong answer 'using AI', when he might have just been answering the question his screen reader read out.
This is an excellent point. I did not think of that.
That should avoid messing things up for people with screen readers while still trapping the copy+pasters.