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

411–419 of 419 posts

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

#411

Post by mathgeek »

ThrowawayR2 wrote: post #364
mathgeek wrote: post #328

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> If you're an ineffective communicator, there's a good chance your comprehension skills are also deficient. We are quickly moving into a world where most communications are at best assisted by AI and more often have little human input at all. There’s nothing inherently “wrong” about that (we all have opinions there), but “natural” (quotes to emphasize that they’re taught and not natural anyway) communication skills…

One of the oldest computing principles is "garbage in, garbage out". The person with better native communication skills and AI will still outshine the one that does not with AI because the best AI in the world isn't going to recover signal when there is only noise.

Agreed for native skills, yes.

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

#412

Post by ethbr1 »

blagie wrote: post #409
ethbr1 wrote: post #343

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The NRA is absolutely in favor of constitutional carry [0] and permitless carry [1]. [0] https://www.shootingillustrated.com/content/constitutional-c... [1] https://www.nraila.org/articles/20210413/texas-permitless-ca...

Please reread what I wrote. You should correct your statement to: "The NRA is absolutely in favor of A LEGAL RIGHT TO constitutional carry and permitless carry." I have a legal right to spend all of my money on Pokemon, (in my jurisdiction) to pro-Nazi free speech, to paint the outside of my house bright pink, or to walk around wearing a mankini in the middle of the winter. Very few of the people who advocate for me…

Are you really arguing that it's okay for the NRA to support dumb laws because most people won't make use of them?

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

#413

Post by MattSayar »

Daub wrote: post #330
csomar wrote: post #208

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> what is your creative philosophy? Seriously?

Yep. Some candidates really enjoy the question to the point where it becomes difficult to get them to stop answering it.

Have you noticed a correlation in candidate quality vs the time spent answering that question?

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

#414

Post by wepple »

toolz wrote: post #294
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…

it's interesting to me how easily you can fact check the statement: > Everyone has a gun on their person with no licensing requirements. Yet at the NRA conference they ban guns. yet, you claim that it's the late night TV that divides us, while making sure to double down on your misleading statement. The NRA doesn't "ban guns at their conferences", they have been banned at small parts of a multi-day conferences e.g. w…

Maybe I’m wrong, but while we’re fact checking, can you provide a source?

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

#415

Post by Daub »

MattSayar wrote: post #413
Daub wrote: post #330

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yep. Some candidates really enjoy the question to the point where it becomes difficult to get them to stop answering it.

Have you noticed a correlation in candidate quality vs the time spent answering that question?

> Have you noticed a correlation in candidate quality vs the time spent answering that question?

Yes, certainly.

Over the years our skill at interviewing has grown. We try to craft a balance between asking questions which require exact responses, and those which the candidate is free to improvise upon.

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

#416

Post by toolz »

wepple wrote: post #414
toolz wrote: post #294

Earlier quoted context omitted.

it's interesting to me how easily you can fact check the statement: > Everyone has a gun on their person with no licensing requirements. Yet at the NRA conference they ban guns. yet, you claim that it's the late night TV that divides us, while making sure to double down on your misleading statement. The NRA doesn't "ban guns at their conferences", they have been banned at small parts of a multi-day conferences e.g. w…

Maybe I’m wrong, but while we’re fact checking, can you provide a source?

I'm very skeptical that you're having a hard time sourcing this information. I have pages from my google search with easily 75% of the results confirming my claim.

Either way, here you go:

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/factcheck/2022/05/27/fac...

> "Restrictions are in place exclusively at the NRA-ILA Leadership Forum at the direction of the United States Secret Service," spokesman Lars Dalseide wrote in an email to USA TODAY. He called the claim that the NRA is banning guns at its conference "incorrect."

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

#417

Post by saagarjha »

_heimdall wrote: post #363
donohoe wrote: post #276

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It’s hardly that. This is one component of an interview process - not all of it!

I'm out of context here as I'm not applying to Anthropic, not surprised at all if I'm missing details of the full process! If this is just for a written part of the process or something, maybe I get it? But even then, if you expect employees to us LLMs I'd really want to see how well they interview with the LLMs available.

There are parts of the interview that allow LLMs.

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

#418

Post by blagie »

ethbr1 wrote: post #412
blagie wrote: post #409

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Please reread what I wrote. You should correct your statement to: "The NRA is absolutely in favor of A LEGAL RIGHT TO constitutional carry and permitless carry." I have a legal right to spend all of my money on Pokemon, (in my jurisdiction) to pro-Nazi free speech, to paint the outside of my house bright pink, or to walk around wearing a mankini in the middle of the winter. Very few of the people who advocate for me…

Are you really arguing that it's okay for the NRA to support dumb laws because most people won't make use of them?

No. I am not.

I am arguing about the importance of accurately understanding everyone in a discussion and avoiding strawman attacks like the ones you're making over and over.

If you'd like to understand the importance of that, I'd refer you to CPG Grey: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rE3j_RHkqJc

And to Sun Tzu: https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/17976-if-you-know-the-enemy...

My general stance on most polarizing issues is to:

1) Keep the debate civil

2) Make sure everyone understands each other (starting with myself)

3) Push towards Pareto-efficiency

What's interesting is that in most discussions, left-wing extremists always believe I'm right-wing because I can articulate right-wing views and don't buy into left-wing Facebook conspiracies, and vice-versa. In other words, both sides lump me into "they" or "enemy" as soon as I either:

- contradict disinformation

- clearly explain an opposing viewpoint (without stating whether I agree with it)

- even use simple trigger words

Very much as you did.

It's okay to understand opposing viewpoints. If both sides did that, there are solutions to most polarizing problems -- guns, abortion, LGBTQ, etc. -- and not even very hard ones.

I'm posting a long-form comment so you can reread what I wrote, reread how you read it, and perhaps debug yourself. You'll be much more effective in advocating from your views if you stop doing this.

If you believe someone is intentionally "arguing that it's okay for [organization] to support dumb laws because most people won't make use of them," the problem is very much on your end.

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

#419

Post by netdevphoenix »

jon-wood wrote: post #27
sshine wrote: 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…

> 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…

You are assuming that they only know how to use an LLM, that doesn't follow from knowing that someone uses an LLM. Chances are they got others skill. A bit like someone who doesn't know how to make a fire and relies on a lighter. He doesn't know how to do it, but knows how to start, knows how to ask for help, knows where to look for help and how to apply the information received
Post reply on HN