71–80 of 419 posts
It's also a personal question, not a "why should someone work here", but a "what motivates YOU"
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Because as someone who’s interviewing, I know you can use AI — anyone can. It likely obscures me from judging the pitfalls, and design and architecture decisions that are required in proper engineering roles. Especially for senior and above applications, I want to make an assessment of how you think about problems, where it gives a chance for the candidate to show their experience, their technical understanding, and…
No, not everyone can really use AI to deliver something that works. And ultimately, this is what this is about, right? Delivering working products.
"That works" is doing a lot of heavy lifting here, and really depends more on the technical skills of the person. Because, shocker, AI doesn't magically make you good and isn't good itself.
Anyone can prompt an AI for answers, it takes skill and knowledge to use those answers in something that works. By prompting AI for simple questions you don't train your skill/knowledge to answer the question yourself. Put simply, using AI makes you worse at your job - precisely when you need to be better.
Earlier 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…
AI is a tool, and tool use is not lazy.
Earlier 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…
AI is a tool, and tool use is not lazy.
Not new they had that 5 years ago at least. Anthropic interview is nebulous. You get a coding interview. Fast paced, little time, 100% pass mark. Then they chat to you for half an hour to gauge your ethics. Maybe I was too honest :) I'm really bad at the "essay" subjects vsm the "hard" subjects so at that point I was dumped.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Because as someone who’s interviewing, I know you can use AI — anyone can. It likely obscures me from judging the pitfalls, and design and architecture decisions that are required in proper engineering roles. Especially for senior and above applications, I want to make an assessment of how you think about problems, where it gives a chance for the candidate to show their experience, their technical understanding, and…
No, not everyone can really use AI to deliver something that works. And ultimately, this is what this is about, right? Delivering working products.
That's not the assumption. The assumption is that if you prove you have a firm grip on delivering things that work without using AI, then you can also do it with AI.
And that it's easier to test you when you're working by yourself.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
doesn't sound much different than googling and finding a snippet that gets you unstuck. This might be a shortcut to the same thing.
But they asked how likely it is. My guess is it's a pretty small fraction of problems where you need to get unstuck.
Earlier 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…
AI is a tool, and tool use is not lazy.
> 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…
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…
And you must use that brain muscles otherwise your skills became to degrade fast, like really fast.
As long as you ask llm What - or high level How - you should be good.
As soon as you ask for (more than trivial) code or solutions - you start losing your skill and value as a developer.
LLMs are essentially translation tools. I use them to translate my picture-thinking into words, just like others might use spell-checkers or dictation software. They don't change my ideas or insights - they just help me express them in a neurotypical-friendly format.
The irony here is that Anthropic is developing AI systems supposedly to benefit humanity, yet their application process explicitly excludes people who use AI as an accessibility tool. It's like telling someone they can't use their usual assistive tools during an application process.
When they say they want to evaluate "non-AI-assisted communication skills," they're essentially saying they want to evaluate my ability to communicate without my accessibility tools. For me, AI-assisted communication is actually a more authentic representation of my thoughts. It's not about gaining an unfair advantage - it's about leveling the playing field so my ideas can be understood by others.
This seems particularly short-sighted for a company developing AI systems. Shouldn't they want diverse perspectives, including from neurodivergent individuals who might have unique insights into how AI can genuinely help people think and communicate differently?