Live data from Hacker News

Interviewing a software engineer who prepared with AI

kapwing.com

541–550 of 731 posts

Re: Interviewing a software engineer who prepared with AI

#541

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Classic bigotry. Hiring is all about finding the best candidate. If you find you cannot function sitting in conference room with three other people for an hour, there is a 100% chance there is a better candidate suited for the role, even if his/her technical skills are less than yours. Jobs have soft skill requirements, and there is nothing bigoted about that.

I'm curious about this. When I've hired, I've always wondered how I can actually tell (a) what soft skills are required for the role and (b) whether a candidate has them. People sometimes think that's a silly thing to ponder: it's obviously obvious! But at most places I've worked, we spend lots of time defining the technical skills required for a job and handwave the rest. I guess people assume "they'll know it when…

> I've always wondered how I can actually tell (a) what soft skills are required for the role and (b) whether a candidate has them.

Being able to communicate clearly and interact with coworkers is the most basic soft skill required for most jobs.

Communicating clearly with coworkers is foundational to interviews because you have to communicate as part of the interview. Don't overthink it into something more complicated.

> being comfortable sitting in a conference room for an hour is an important part of their job. In some workplaces that would be an odd requirement.

I think you're taking it too literally. Being able to converse with coworkers in a conference room is an interview proxy for being able to communicate with coworkers on the job. You're not literally testing their ability to sit in a conference room, you just happen to be in a conference room because that's where the interview takes place.

The internet is always full of arguments that some people might be really bad at interviewing but great at the job. That's true to some degree, but in my experience a lot of the difficult behaviors that show up in the interview (poor communication, uncomfortable talking to coworkers, or even if someone is difficult to work with) don't disappear after those candidates are hired. People are usually trying their hardest during the interview to look good, so often those characteristics become worse, not better, once they're hired.

It's tough to discuss online because nobody likes to think about rejecting people for soft skills. We want to maintain this Platonic ideal of a programmer who creates brilliant code in a vacuum and nothing else matters, but in real jobs clear communication is really important.

Re: Interviewing a software engineer who prepared with AI

#542

"Preparing with AI" sounds like an issue here, and it's not. The issue is lying about your experiences, which people have done since the beginning of time. I "prepare with AI" by having it help give me hints when doing leetcode problems, which is very helpful. Interviewing is not a presentation, it's a conversation, and having a simulated other side can be helpful. This shouldn't be surreal at all. A candidate just w…

> I "prepare with AI" by having it help give me hints when doing leetcode problems

I've been really impressed with how much a of performance lift working on leetcode with AI is. It's so much easier to focus on developing rapid problem decomposition skills and working with an interviewer during the problem.

Unfortunately it's also necessary to improve this process because the current standards for the companies still doing leetcode interviews are getting pretty wild these days. Meta requires 2 med-hard question solved in 20 minutes or less each for the screen these days! Even if you have solid algorithmic thinking solving and implementing solutions that quickly requires you to be insanely prepped.

Re: Interviewing a software engineer who prepared with AI

#543

I keep coming back to this phrase used in this post: "it was scary". Yeah, hiring is scary. Hiring is insanely expensive on all fronts. Firing people is difficult, it's expensive and legally exposing. Hiring the wrong person, allowing them access your systems and potentially exfiltrate your IP to them is a hazardous but necessary venture. The thing is, none of these things really changed with AI. People have been lyi…

No Computer Science degree = forget about it. In the past we took a chance hiring people with non traditional backgrounds but now that everyone thinks they can do complex engineering with the help of AI, we need to know people have truly studied the fundamentals over a period of 4 years at a university.

Id say it depends on the specifics of the job role; In most cases, "the fundamentals" arent relevant at all; they are items on the runtime library of a given high level language of choice. There are exceptions, obviously, but you do not need to be a rocket scientist to maintain an ERP or an e-commerce application; on the other hand, there are plenty of "hard problems" where computer science is also mostly useless, because the steepness of it is advanced math, not algorithm design.

Re: Interviewing a software engineer who prepared with AI

#544

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Fly where? Many companies don't have offices anymore. Presumably to meet the boss. And maybe the key people on the team.

So fly them to multiple destinations? I was hired 1 year ago and interviewed with ~14 people all living in different locations. That could be paired down, but it won't ever reach the single destination that the OP is referring to.

Nobody is seriously suggesting you perform every interview step in person. The suggestion is to consider doing the last interview in person. It could even be with one other person.

Re: Interviewing a software engineer who prepared with AI

#545

I keep coming back to this phrase used in this post: "it was scary". Yeah, hiring is scary. Hiring is insanely expensive on all fronts. Firing people is difficult, it's expensive and legally exposing. Hiring the wrong person, allowing them access your systems and potentially exfiltrate your IP to them is a hazardous but necessary venture. The thing is, none of these things really changed with AI. People have been lyi…

> - And yeah, you guys, it's time to buy a suit.

No man, it's not and never was - unless you are aiming for a "career" at JP Morgan and the likes.

Re: Interviewing a software engineer who prepared with AI

#546
post #466

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The issue is lying about your experiences I think the point is that LLMs makes it easier and cheaper to produce a large volume of convincing lies. The candidate likely would not have been able to produce convincing-enough lies to get through the resume screen without LLMs.

That's true. On the other hand I have tried ChatGPT to review programming concepts or language features and I have found it very convenient and more useful than Googling. For instance if you want to prepare for a C dev interview and would like to review what 'static' means and does (one of the super usual interview questions) you can just ask and immediately get a pretty much perfect explanation without noise. It's n…

Or you can open any good C book and review that way. Not to bash on the use of AI, but there's a lot of alternative ways that for me is more reliable to get knowledge from.

Re: Interviewing a software engineer who prepared with AI

#547

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The thing is, none of these things really changed with AI I agree that lying was possible before AI, but something about AI has emboldened a lot more people to try to lie. Something about having the machine fabricate the lie for you seems to lessen the guilt of lying. There's also a growing sentiment online that using AI to cheat/lie is "fair" because they think companies are using AI to screen candidates. It's not…

I've conducted interviews where the candidate asked if he could use google to try to get an answer. I often say "sure". If a guy can read an explanation out of context, understand it in a way he can explain it using his own words, and reason about corner cases in a couple of minutes, he's hired. The same goes with AI; canned responses work when you ask canned questions, not so much on open-ended ones.

That's missing the point. The goal is to have a level playing field for the interview.

If your interview format allows people to use outside help but only if they think to ask, that's hardly a level playing field. You're testing the candidate's willingness to ask. In most interview formats it would not be acceptable to Google the answer, so most people won't ask.

If you have an interview format that allows Googling, you should mention that at the start. Not leave it as a secret for people to discover.

Re: Interviewing a software engineer who prepared with AI

#548

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What if there are no open positions on my experience and I have to pivot to another completely different tech stack that I studied in my spare time? What then? Should I be unemployed? We're still taking about SW engineering here, not medicine or rocket science.

What do you think happens when you lie through the interview ? I recently had this in my team - we were hiring fast and hired someone we shouldn't have - fired after two weeks. So your best case is receiving 6 weeks income after getting lucky and scamming someone through an interview ?

And there's the reputation loss if someone decided to do due diligence.

Re: Interviewing a software engineer who prepared with AI

#549

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The thing is, none of these things really changed with AI I agree that lying was possible before AI, but something about AI has emboldened a lot more people to try to lie. Something about having the machine fabricate the lie for you seems to lessen the guilt of lying. There's also a growing sentiment online that using AI to cheat/lie is "fair" because they think companies are using AI to screen candidates. It's not…

>There's also a growing sentiment online that using AI to cheat/lie is "fair" because they think companies are using AI to screen candidates. It's not logically consistent How is it not logically consistent?

Because it's a nonsensical reduction and false equivalence.

It's like if you saw a headline that some grocery stores were price fixing, so you decide it's only fair if you steal from your local grocery store. One bad behavior does not justify another in a different context. Both are wrong. It's also nonsensical to try to punish your local grocery store for perceived wrongs of other grocery stores.

That's why it's such a ridiculous claim: Two wrongs don't make a right and you don't even know if the people you're interviewing with are the same as the people doing the thing you don't like.

Re: Interviewing a software engineer who prepared with AI

#550
post #227

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I wouldn't take that advice seriously. Suit in tech would be awkward (even for most mgmt roles). Tech pioneered the concept that you don't need a suit to get the pay of a suit. You can be yourself.

Seeing someone wearing a suit for a dev interview would make me think one of the following: (1) This person really really needs the job. Probably is in a bad negotiation position, due to this urgent need. (2) Are you here to impress people with looks, or with your skills? (3) They take looks way more serious than they should, maybe not focussing enough on the technical side of things. (4) Hopefully this is not an "En…

This feels like such a narrow view of the world. Not necessarily discriminatory, but on the path to get there.

So what if a candidate wants to look good? How you feel about your looks affects your confidence, and you want to be confident in an interview.

And like, if a candidate came in with a well groomed beard would you think “he probably spends too much time on his beard, he must be a bad programmer”? I bet you don’t.

I’m not trying to criticize you too much, but this just feels antithetical to everything that tech stands for. You get judged on your merits, not on anything else. This way of thinking is how you create an environment hostile to women and minorities.

Our industry in north america is known for lots its egotistical slobs, but I thought that was changing.

Post reply on HN