Live data from Hacker News

Anthropic: "Applicants should not use AI assistants"

simonwillison.net

91–100 of 419 posts

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

#91
post #74
post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

AI is a tool, and tool use is not lazy.

It is if the way to learn is doing it without a tool. Imagine using a robot to lift weights if you want to grow your own muscle mass. "Robot is a tool"

When you go for a job as a forklift operator, nobody asks you to demonstrate how you can manually carry a load of timber.

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

#92
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…

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…

Learning comes from focus and repetition. Talent comes from knowing which skill to use. Using AI effectively is a talent. Some of us embrace learning new skills while others hold onto the past. AI is here to stay, sorry. You can either learn to adapt to it or you can slowly die.

The argument that AI is bad and anyone who uses it ends up in a tangled mess is only your perspective and your experience. I’m way more productive using AI to help me than I ever was before. Yes, I proofread the result. Yes, I can discern a good response from a bad one.

AI isn’t a replacement for knowing how to code, but it can be an extremely valuable teacher to those orgs that lack proper training.

Any company that has the position that AI is bad, and lacks proper training and incentives for those that want to learn new skills, isn’t a company I ever want to work for.

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

#94
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…

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…

I think the same kind of critical thinking that was required to reimplement and break algorithms must now be used to untangle AIs answers. In that way, it's a new skill, with its own muscle memory. Previously learnt skills like debugging segfaults slowly become less relevant.

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

#95
post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It is if the way to learn is doing it without a tool. Imagine using a robot to lift weights if you want to grow your own muscle mass. "Robot is a tool"

When you go for a job as a forklift operator, nobody asks you to demonstrate how you can manually carry a load of timber.

You forgot a second sentence that completes the logic chain. Yes, "some tools are useful for some work", so what? That wasn't the original claim...

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

#96
post #22

This is quite a conundrum. These AI companies thrive on the idea that very soon people will not be replaced by AI, but by people who can effectively use AI to be 10x more productive. If AI turns a normal coder into a 10x dev, then why wouldn't you want to see that during an interview? Especially since cheating this whole interview system has become trivial in the past months. It's not the applicants that are the prob…

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…

>We don’t want to work with AI, we are going to pay the person for the persons time

If your interview problems are representative of the work that you actually do, and an AI can do it as well as a qualified candidate, then that means that eventually you'll be out-competed by a competitor that does want to work with AI, because it's much cheaper to hire an AI. If an AI could do great at your interview problems but still suck at the job, that means your interview questions aren't very good/representative.

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

#97
post #80

This application requirement really bothered me as someone who's autistic and dyslexic. I think visually, and while I have valid ideas and unique perspectives, I sometimes struggle to convert my visual thoughts into traditional spoken/written language. AI tools are invaluable to me - they help bridge the gap between my visual thinking and the written expression that's expected in professional settings. LLMs are essen…

[deleted]

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

#98
post #80

This application requirement really bothered me as someone who's autistic and dyslexic. I think visually, and while I have valid ideas and unique perspectives, I sometimes struggle to convert my visual thoughts into traditional spoken/written language. AI tools are invaluable to me - they help bridge the gap between my visual thinking and the written expression that's expected in professional settings. LLMs are essen…

[deleted]

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

#99
post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But how likely is that?

It was the same way I think a lot of us used textbooks back in the day. Can’t figure out how to solve a problem, so look around for a similar setup in the chapter. If AI is just a search over all information, this makes that process faster. I guess the downside is there was arguably something to be learned searching through the chapter as well.

> something to be learned searching through the chapter as well

Learning to mentally sort through and find links between concepts is probably the primary benefit of homework

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

#100

If I want to assess a candidates performance when they can't use AI then I think I'd sit in a room with them and talk to them. If I ask people not to use AI on a task where using AI is advantageous and undetectable then I'm going to discriminate against honest people.

Is it advantageous? The AI generated responses to this question are prone to be dull.

It might even give the honest people an advantage by giving them a tip to answer on their own.

Post reply on HN