Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Interviewing a software engineer who prepared with AI

kapwing.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

711–720 of 731 posts

Re: Interviewing a software engineer who prepared with AI

#711

Post by a_t48 »

hnbad wrote: post #502
fancyfredbot wrote: post #487

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you never prepared for the interview then you probably never really wanted/needed the job and so the requisite motivation wasn't there for you. Nothing wrong with that - nice position to be in actually.

Or they might simply have some ADHD/autistic traits which make these things require additional effort. I have a list of past projects I'm comfortable talking about. I can go to great lengths talking about any of them in detail if prompted. I'm also comfortable talking about technical topics including those I'm not intimately familiar with - that's part of my job after all. But most importantly, I'm confident enough t…

It's more like those traits both making it tough for me to study but also great at test taking. :)

Re: Interviewing a software engineer who prepared with AI

#712

Post by WJW »

lores wrote: post #394
WJW wrote: post #333

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If there is a de facto dress code and you knowingly go against it, even if you look good in whatever you do wear, it makes you look like you don't understand the prevailing norms. This could lead to worries you might not align with other team norms either.

If it's so important, the interview invite should mention that casual wear is expected. Like it or not, most people take interviews seriously, and have been taught that you show you take the interview seriously by wearing a suit.

Tbh, people who blindly accept what they've been taught without considering the situation at hand don't make good engineers anyway (software or otherwise). It's not like programmers not wearing suits is some well-kept secret only accessible to the inner circle. Quite the opposite I'd say.

Re: Interviewing a software engineer who prepared with AI

#713

Post by amrocha »

zelphirkalt wrote: post #693
amrocha wrote: post #550

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 do…

> 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. But that is also a narrow view of the world, no? Who says a suit looks good? What if I think pajamas looks good? I am exaggerating of course, but I often think suits don't look particularly better or anything. It is just some random norm, that society has ascribed to that p…

Sounds like we mostly agree. You don’t have to like or agree with anyone’s personal choices, but you do have to respect them and treat them fairly.

Especially if you’re an interviewer.

Re: Interviewing a software engineer who prepared with AI

#714

Post by ralferoo »

rcxdude wrote: post #702
ralferoo wrote: post #699

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This still doesn't justify lying to a potential employer. If your CV won't get you to an interview, then you don't have the skills they are looking for. Aside from lying, you have other choices - spend some time working on personal projects to get the skills you need, obtain a recognised qualification in the skills you need, or try to find some way to obtain those skills in your current job. All of those will increas…

You're still assuming the process is vaguely functional. It's entirely possible for a company to have a broken enough hiring process that no-one legitimately has the list of skills that the first line of CV filtering is pattern-matching against. Which is dumb, and they should fix their processes, but it basically means lying is required to get those jobs, and people do, the companies don't notice because they don't a…

> It's entirely possible for a company to have a broken enough hiring process that no-one legitimately has the list of skills that the first line of CV filtering is pattern-matching against.

This is still based on a false assumption, because you want to justify it to yourself.

If the company had lots of CVs being submitted but not a single person made it through their screening, they'd realise their screening bar was either too high (as you assume) or that their bar was correct but they couldn't find the candidate they wanted. Maybe their standards are too high, in which case they might then re-evaluate their expectations are repeat their hiring process with a lower acceptance criteria.

If they're only looking to fill a single role, it doesn't matter if the process screens out 99.9% of the candidates as long as they get through at least one candidate that fulfills the requirement. Of course, if the situation is as you describe, for such a rare talent, the candidate is possibly looking for money than they're prepared to pay, at which point they can again calibrate their expectations lower or decide to pay more. But that's a business decision for the company to decide, not you as a jobseeker.

But the people who know what the company is looking for, and how many people get through their filtering is the company themselves, not you. Just because you don't have the skills required and you extrapolate that to "no-one has these skills", it doesn't mean you're correct and it doesn't mean you're justified in lying.

You then say that you haven't "been desperate enough to try this". In that case, you shouldn't be defending this behaviour either - it will be hurting you when the jobs you are qualified for and have a legitimate shot at getting end up getting filled by a candidate who's not actually up to the task and managed to lie and BS their way through the interview. How is that a good outcome for you or for the company?

Re: Interviewing a software engineer who prepared with AI

#715

Post by fc417fc802 »

ralferoo wrote: post #714
rcxdude wrote: post #702

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're still assuming the process is vaguely functional. It's entirely possible for a company to have a broken enough hiring process that no-one legitimately has the list of skills that the first line of CV filtering is pattern-matching against. Which is dumb, and they should fix their processes, but it basically means lying is required to get those jobs, and people do, the companies don't notice because they don't a…

> It's entirely possible for a company to have a broken enough hiring process that no-one legitimately has the list of skills that the first line of CV filtering is pattern-matching against. This is still based on a false assumption, because you want to justify it to yourself. If the company had lots of CVs being submitted but not a single person made it through their screening, they'd realise their screening bar was…

You're really missing the point here. It isn't about the idea world, it's about things as they actually are. Mental gymnastics to justifying something is not the same as a sober assessment of the incentives and dynamics of a system.

Re: Interviewing a software engineer who prepared with AI

#716

Post by ralferoo »

fc417fc802 wrote: post #715
ralferoo wrote: post #714

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> It's entirely possible for a company to have a broken enough hiring process that no-one legitimately has the list of skills that the first line of CV filtering is pattern-matching against. This is still based on a false assumption, because you want to justify it to yourself. If the company had lots of CVs being submitted but not a single person made it through their screening, they'd realise their screening bar was…

You're really missing the point here. It isn't about the idea world, it's about things as they actually are. Mental gymnastics to justifying something is not the same as a sober assessment of the incentives and dynamics of a system.

Lying on your CV and in an interview isn't a "sober assessment of the incentives and dynamics of a system". It's deceit.

Re: Interviewing a software engineer who prepared with AI

#717

Post by ImPostingOnHN »

FirmwareBurner wrote: post #684
ImPostingOnHN wrote: post #512

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm sorry you feel hurt or harmed by someone. I've felt that, too, and it really sucks. It's not a good feeling. I avoid recruiters unless they can serve me well, too (increased salary, signing bonus, etc), instead preferring to applying directly to individual companies whose mission is interesting and whose culture matches mine. That said, I don't think hurt is a valid justification for hurting someone else, like th…

Nobody's getting hurt when you can do the job. In fact you're doing them a favor by taking a job and making money for them.

>> Nobody's getting hurt when you can do the job.

> Beyond that, you'd be harming others by taking the job from someone who put in the work to actually be qualified, and harming your future coworkers by deceiving them. [0]

> We're explicitly discussing someone lying about their abilities and experience, and thus not able to deliver what they said they can in their resume and/or interview. [0]

0: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43623155

If you wish to reply, it'd be appreciated if you could reply in the referenced thread where you originally made your above claims, and where they were originally refuted. Arguing the same claim over multiple posts seems like it'd be a waste of your time.

Re: Interviewing a software engineer who prepared with AI

#718

Post by ImPostingOnHN »

FirmwareBurner wrote: post #611
ImPostingOnHN wrote: post #488

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Switching to a tech stack is not the same as switching to brain surgery. SW engineering is a critical component of both medicine and rocket science, and doing it wrong can kill people. Beyond that, you'd be harming others by taking the job from someone who put in the work to actually be qualified, and harming your future coworkers by deceiving them. > Recruiters or HR who check your resume never cared about what yo…

You're not harming anyone with grooming and pump up your resume to give yourself the best possible chance. Jobs aren't assigned and reserved to people from birth based on fate in order to be something you can steal from them with this. You don't deserve a job just because, you have to compete and interview for it like everyone else, and if you can get it and do the job, then good for you. If you're better prepared or…

>> You're not harming anyone

I refer you to the below lines in the post to which you replied:

> Beyond that, you'd be harming others by taking the job from someone who put in the work to actually be qualified, and harming your future coworkers by deceiving them.

> We're explicitly discussing someone lying about their abilities and experience, and thus not able to deliver what they said they can in their resume and/or interview.

----

>> Everyone deserves exactly what they manage get for themselves. That's exactly how meritocracy works. You're not entitled to deserve a job from the start, out of of some holy moral principle. There's no such thing as "I deserve", there's only "I competed, and I won/lost".

In other words, might makes right. If you manage to scam an old lady out of her retirement savings, you deserve to have it! There's no such thing as "she deserves", only "she competed and she lost", etc etc etc.

It's a good thing there are people in this world that don't subscribe to this "fark you, anything goes, as long as I got mine" style of "ethics".

Re: Interviewing a software engineer who prepared with AI

#719

Post by tomhow »

amrocha wrote: post #686
tomhow wrote: post #670

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Be kind. Don't be snarky. Converse curiously; don't cross-examine. Edit out swipes. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

I understand and respect your decision to moderate my comment, and I’ll be more careful going forward. But I would like to point out that a rule that allows someone to openly state they discriminate during interviews but forbids a strong reaction to that statement might require some examination.

You’re welcome to disagree with people and present your opposing view, but we just need you to do so without escalating into hostility and personal insults. This site exists to be a place of curious conversation, not a battleground.

Re: Interviewing a software engineer who prepared with AI

#720

Post by fc417fc802 »

ralferoo wrote: post #716
fc417fc802 wrote: post #715

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're really missing the point here. It isn't about the idea world, it's about things as they actually are. Mental gymnastics to justifying something is not the same as a sober assessment of the incentives and dynamics of a system.

Lying on your CV and in an interview isn't a "sober assessment of the incentives and dynamics of a system". It's deceit.

I never implied such an equivalence.

Perhaps you could reread GP? You seem to have misunderstood what he wrote. Surely discussing the motivations of those who act deceitfully is not itself deceit.

Post reply on HN