Great job on further eroding the trust from a prospective employer.
Require a formal degree in CS? That's gatekeeping.
Need to pass a whiteboard exam? Not representative of the actual work.
Live coding session? Biased against people who don't perform well under pressure.
Take home project? It's too much work to do for free.
Showcase a personal portfolio? Not fair to people with families or other obligations.
Either you enforce a minimal level of competency upfront in the form of an academic degree, industry-standard exams such as a PE Exam, etc. OR you push the entire responsibility of vetting prospective applicants downstream to the employer—which is exactly why interviews are multiple week long gauntlets.
The tech world likes to complain about all of this but other occupations 100% DO have high standards - it's just that it's paid up-front.
Want to become a lawyer? - You've got to pass the LSAT, get into law school, and pass the bar.
Want to become a doctor? - You've got to pass the MCAT, get into medical school, and do residency.
Want to become a pilot? - You've got to get your PPL, pass your check ride, do your IFR, multi-engine, commercial rating, ATP
God there are some days that I ABSOLUTELY HATE THIS INDUSTRY.
The pushback is precisely because paying the high standards up front pulls up the ladder that made tech such an attractive option to people without traditional academic skills who managed to be computer whizzes.
Take home projects and personal portfolios are the options that are the best. Those are the ones where candidates are given the time to show their best work and don't require the debt of a college degree in a specific major (whose knowledge is probably largely irrelevant to your day-to-day coding).
If your hiring process is broken by people using AI then the process is either not evaluating the right things, or maybe it's fine because realistically speaking you're hiring a dev who's going to be using AI anyway.
> Require a formal degree in CS? That's gatekeeping.
Selecting people for a job is literally gatekeeping. The company has the equivalent of a gate (or perhaps an actual one), and most people are kept out of it by the fact that they are not employees or authorized visitors.
No part of would-be employee screening can be faulted for being gatekeeping; i.e. being that which it is.
There’s an argument to be made that by the time your business runs out of vetted candidates to hire you’re already staffed at some of the highest levels by corporate parasites who got there by gaming the system, and you can tolerate adding more elsewhere.
> Biased against people who don't perform well under pressure.
I think performance under pressure is a virtue. An important job is never going to be entirely free from stress - you want somebody reliable who will take that in their stride, you don't want someone who will buckle when things get difficult.
I'm all for in-person live collaborative problem solving, be it on a whiteboard or just a discussion. You see first-hand exactly what the person has in their memory, their problem solving techniques, how quickly they get things, their communication skills, and yes, their ability to work under pressure. If done correctly and collaboratively, you get a dry-run of a real design meeting and have some feeling of what it would be like to work with the person.
I prefer our current system over the industry standards exam system you seem to be advocating for. It’s more flexible. Different companies care about different things. Different employees have different strengths. It all works out.
I'm a little confused about your reasoning that take home projects are too much work to do for free. Aren't lawyers and doctors expected to spend a ton of time studying and taking the licensing exams without being paid (I assume even having to pay for it)? My gut feeling is that's more work than a take home project.
Live coding session? Biased against people who don't perform well under pressure.
No, it's biased against people who perform perfectly well (sometimes exceptionally well) under real, actual pressure. But who do not take kindly to the bullshit / theatrical pressure typical of the standard interview context, these days. And to companies that just can't tell the difference (or are under the delusion that performance in the latter category is in some way predictive of performance in the former).
Take home project? It's too much work to do for free.
It's more that the companies simply abuse the process in various callous and careless ways -- either by assigning projects with inadequate specification and/or unknown goalposts (or plainly unrealistic expectations of the actual time required, given these ambiguities); or simply assigning scores of these assignments (often automatically to every candidate who applies) when in fact they have no intention of even looking at the vast majority of the submissions.
Easily ameliorated by simply paying people for their time.
Shut the fuck up. We'll stop cheating when these corps stop making us solve binary search algorithms to interview for front end React roles. Probably 80% of all technical interviews I've had were completely irrelevant to the actual daily work. They engineered this shitty game, we're just playing the game. No one's making you play this game.
Feels like in some sections of the US like big tech, the talent vetting process has evolved into some adversarial battle of attrition where the idea is to grind down the pool of candidates until only a few are left rather than find some potential new colleagues. Tools like this have emerged as a direct response to that process.
What a bizarre way to begin a working relationship.
I’m reasonably certain that I interviewed someone using this or something like it in the last few days.
Lots of eye scanning while looking above the window they’d been typing into. Pauses. Big pastes. One of my excellent colleagues noticed that the candidate made use of exciting C++ casts before ever defining the variable’s types. Complete inability to explain or debug the code just written.
So. Frustrating in two dimensions. First a waste of time for everyone. Second, occasional signs of real ability make me think the candidate might’ve made it work honestly. The fool.
This, and this alone, makes me pine for in-person interviews. But I suspect those won’t be back for some time. (For good reasons that are out of scope here.)
Why bother with this style of interview where the candidate is under extreme time pressure and isn’t allowed to use any of the research tools they would normally use in their job? What is this controlling for?
It barely made sense when these were conducted in person, and it’s completely inane over video meeting.
Instead of grilling people, talk to them. Give them meaningful take-home exercises that you can discuss together during the interview. If they can explain the decisions they made and discuss alternatives and trade-offs, that’s a much better indicator of job performance than pretending to invent a leetcode party trick algorithm in 10 minutes.
Live interviews control for wasting the candidate time in a way that take home exercises don't.
Both the candidate and the interviewer need to take time out of their day for the interview. If it's an in-person interview, the candidate also takes travel time etc, which could be more disruptive.
But it takes almost no time to give a take home problem, so there's potential for a significant assymetry in time spent between candidate and employer.
I let candidates use the Internet (except AI tools) during coding interviews. All I care is if given a problem can they do the necessary research to solve it. It usually involves making them use a library which they are not already familiar with. This is more than enough for most of the programming jobs.
Just in case this repo isn't a joke and some job seekers are seriously thinking of this tactic...
Companies already know about cheat methods like this and candidates still have to demonstrate skills in-person on a whiteboard in a 2nd round of tech interviews.
A high-paying FAANG job isn't going to hire candidates based on just one remote Zoom tech interview.
That still may not deter some folks and they'll try to continue to find some cheating technique to use in front of the whiteboard. In that case, some creativity is going to be required. E.g. : https://www.google.com/search?q=chess+cheating+anal+beads
The issue is that "chess board moves" is very low bandwidth and can be efficiently encoded into pseudo-quasi- Morse Code vibration schemes. However, if you're asked to "invert a binary tree" or any other open-ended random puzzles, it's more difficult to compress a secret 2-way high-bandwidth communication with ChatGPT into a hidden butt plug. (But then again, if a candidate is actually able to fool people with hidden ChatGPT hacks in a face-to-face interview, maybe FAANG should hire them based on that alone.)
Keep on the lookout for a github repo with ChatGPT butt-plug communication.
I empathize with new grads. It can be hard to stand out especially at the beginning of your career.
But I predict this won’t do what the authors claim: it won’t fix anything, and it won’t change technical interviews that much. At most it might increase the number of companies that require remote candidates to fly in and interview in person to do the same practical coding problems they used to do online. Which would be the standard from just a few years ago, anyway.
Practical coding problems (also known as work simulation interviews) are the most effective and least biased tools available for evaluating candidates. Not every hiring manager does a good job using these tools, but if you see misuse, take it as a sign that the manager might not be good to work for.
I have trouble understanding the authors thinking here that anything would be worth the cost of this: it’s a trust-busting tool where people are deceiving their potential employer. Trust is foundational to everything, in work and in life. We need more trust in our society, not less.
Had something in the works when I first got to know about multimodal GPT and electron made it super simple to prototype something. Refined it a bit to even do the invisible window thing after feedback from my peers. Didn’t have the ahem courage to do it.
Also recently noticed there are actual companies around this space who are marketing this off as “interview assistance”. Two of them I’m aware of:
I’m sure the knee-jerk reaction from the tech industry to these tools would be:
1. Return to in-person interviews
2. Force install spyware/vanguard like crap to scan your whole personal computer before doing the interview
If you are a tech leader/senior engineer with influence on these matters, I *HOPE*, that this is not the path you take. It’s high time FAANG and others stop gatekeeping with these useless rounds that are equivalent to forcing people to hand-solve complex math equations instead of using calculators. I also partly blame the YT influencers who keep peddling this BS but they will stop if the companies themselves take a stance.
You can rather use the same 1 hour slots to have a conversation, pair program on a realistic problem required for the role you’re hiring for where you and the interviewee can both benefit from the knowledge transfer. I’ve tried this in many of the interviews I’ve conducted and always went away learning something from an excellent candidate or a candidate who didn’t meet the expectations, going out knowing where they fall short.
> 2. Force install spyware/vanguard like crap to scan your whole personal computer before doing the interview
People who professionally cheat on online exams just use an HDMI splitter/capture card to inject whatever image they need using a second computer. It’s a lost game.
For offline interviews there are hidden earpieces etc.
> If you are a tech leader/senior engineer with influence on these matters, I HOPE, that this is not the path you take.
On-site interviews should be the standard path to take to detect the frauds and cheaters before they become potential bad hires.
Online technical assessments now have little added value given that AI tools like finalround.ai, etc just make it easy for frauds to cheat the technical interview.
This is actually a strong argument to a return to on-site interviews and should just draw the line on this and detect the frauds altogether.
I might be calling obvious but if candidate uses something like this, is this not lying to potential employer?
I'd rather be rejected than got job I'm not qualified to do, that's why I never prepare for interview above studying the actual company- and that is more to give me proper signal if I want to work for them, I want to be motivated to make move on more than just money.
I also have never done leetcode, though I like competitive programming problems, especially bot programming contests on codingame.com
> I'd rather be rejected than got job I'm not qualified to do
As many people have pointed out, the interview process has diverged from real-world, day-to-day tasks you would be expected to accomplish once you get the job. Not actually being able to do a leetcode test (either due to lacking knowledge or interview stress) might not have any reflection on someones ability to succeed in the role they are interviewing for. How many people are dealing with sorting algorithms or traversing binary trees without access to the internet as part of their job?
> that's why I never prepare for interview above studying the actual company
You and me both. I just read a bit about the company before applying for the job. In the interview, I ask the interviewer only two questions: what’s the management style? Is it a servant leadership style with autonomous work, or is it a hierarchical task-based one? The second question is, what does an average day-to-day job look like? Sure, there are few stressful days and others are relaxed, but on average you can tell. Is it chaotic, always running against deadlines and having new tasks thrown at you, or is everything sorted out properly? Sometimes, I also ask about the meetings. I personally don’t like useless meetings. A lot of middle management uses meetings as part of the power dynamics and exerting power rather than actually discussing and solving issues.
The thing I see people getting wrong with live coding interviews (speaking as an interviewer) is that their code rarely matters. If you write some code, I might ask "So what kinds of failure modes will this code need to account for?" Whether you named your variables well or wrote comments didn't matter. If you can't talk about your work or explain your thinking or discuss tradeoffs or question constraints or show your thought process, that's what's going to fail the interview for you. Getting the exact right solution is bonus points, but the job isn't to consistently get things 100% right writing code by hand.
How often do doctors have to prove they can still recall every obscure medical fact when changing hospitals? When a lawyer moves to a new firm, do they have to retake the bar or answer weird hypothetical cases all over again? Aren't their credentials, past cases, and reputation usually enough? Why do we in tech keep forcing experienced professionals to jump through these puzzle-like hoops instead of trusting their track record?
I wonder: if a LLM can answer typical interview question better than a human, what kind of questions should we ask so that using a LLM becomes worthless? Something that LLMs are forbidden to talk about? Something that LLM doesn't know well?
In my experience, LLMs are pretty bad with low-level languages like Rust/C when you need to deal with pointers and ownership, avoid extra copies.
Another option is to ask for something impossible, as LLMs usually do not admit inability to solve the problem and prefer to hallucinate a fictional solution.
I’d say chances of getting busted are high as well. The invisibility of the window to common interview software won’t do anything mask candidates’ own suspicious behaviour.
I was doing a 45 minute screener interview with a guy the other day who I could see kept glancing over at another window or screen as he was typing in code. Every couple of characters or so he was pausing looking over, then he’d type a handful more characters, then pause and glance again. He was typing incredibly slowly as well, like a character or two per second, even when he was typing. It was honestly a bit of a weird experience to watch unfolding. His solutions were spot on though.
I didn’t make an issue of it, partly because I already had other concerns as well. I can’t think of a situation where there’s anything to gain by getting into an argument with a candidate: I simply didn’t invite him to the next interview stage.
People rarely get fired solely due to technical incompetence, in my experience.
Technical competence happens to be much easier to test for than most of the other factors, and it can compensate to some degree for e.g. bad interpersonal skills. This is indeed part of why tech is such an autism-friendly field. But I've only seen a few people get let go for being great team players, excellent requirements analysts, etc., but just totally unable to code - for better or worse.
(More common is they get shifted to a role which better aligns with their "true" skillset. Why didn't they get this role in the first place? Again: Hard to test for.)
I do agree, however from my experience some folk smart enough to build this kind of system will struggle in an interview situation. Maybe rather than outright cheating, this could be more of a leg-up for those who find interviews difficult. Still wouldn't use it myself.
Since interview process is also flawed in many ways luck based, if you cheat and moderately capable, you can totally stay there and even go up in ranks.
It's starting to feel more like "cheat the job interview because the cat-and-mouse game has pushed everything to the point where you can't legitimately get an offer for a job you're actually fully qualified for anymore"
That's not quite where things are now, but the initial phases are beginning to show.
There's a positive association between 1337code interview hurdles and lack of management competence.
Someone without the confidence to hire someone without going through a bunch of hoops to justify themselves is even less likely to admit humility and say they were wrong. Which makes places that employ these interview techniques terribly passive aggressive places to be.
Obligatory "I don't agree with this and think it seems like a pretty depressing way to live", but:
A colleague yesterday was telling me about how much he and all his friends lied to get their jobs, and he suggested I do the same, because if I don't, I'm competing against people who do, and said that's unfair (for me).
It wasn't even an office job, but I've seen the same thing there too. (Also at university...)
This kind of tool is why companies will push back towards on-site interviews, and consequently RTO, given that the people who interviewed are the ones who could easily go to the office to be interviewed.
Honestly, it's hard to blame the company. If the employee is willing to lie and cheat even before they were hired, it's expected that companies will take away their tool to do it: remote calls and WFH. As always, the honest worker gets shafted.
For a while my company did aptitude tests that basically are measuring certain types of intelligence. I personally found a very good correlation between somebody doing well on those and them fitting into the team.
For some reason (legal?) we stopped and now we are doing interviews that have a way worse correlation.
In my recent experience, CS courses should incorporate acting classes to help future job seekers. Right now more interviewees than I expected are doing a really bad job at trying to fool interviewers with LLMs and tools like this one. It's blatant obvious and too easy to catch cheaters (and then they are banned from any future positions on ethical grounds).
All these online assessment solutions such as leetcode, hackerrank, etc are essentially close to useless given all these AI based cheaters and LLM products being used by candidates.
On-site interviews it is then, and this time you cannot use those LLMs to save you.
If you wanted a completely invisible system you could do it via audio. Speech to text and back again and use a two pairs of same model wireless headphone with say the left ear connected to a hidden device and the right ear to the interview machine.
Other than a bit of practice it would be completely undetectable visually. It’s extra nice that we encourage thinking out loud.
We should assume people are doing this. The solution is interviews that don’t require information that can be looked up or in-person interviews or permitting the use of AI.
[+] [-] vunderba|1 year ago|reply
Require a formal degree in CS? That's gatekeeping.
Need to pass a whiteboard exam? Not representative of the actual work.
Live coding session? Biased against people who don't perform well under pressure.
Take home project? It's too much work to do for free.
Showcase a personal portfolio? Not fair to people with families or other obligations.
Either you enforce a minimal level of competency upfront in the form of an academic degree, industry-standard exams such as a PE Exam, etc. OR you push the entire responsibility of vetting prospective applicants downstream to the employer—which is exactly why interviews are multiple week long gauntlets.
The tech world likes to complain about all of this but other occupations 100% DO have high standards - it's just that it's paid up-front.
Want to become a lawyer? - You've got to pass the LSAT, get into law school, and pass the bar.
Want to become a doctor? - You've got to pass the MCAT, get into medical school, and do residency.
Want to become a pilot? - You've got to get your PPL, pass your check ride, do your IFR, multi-engine, commercial rating, ATP
God there are some days that I ABSOLUTELY HATE THIS INDUSTRY.
[+] [-] BeFlatXIII|1 year ago|reply
Take home projects and personal portfolios are the options that are the best. Those are the ones where candidates are given the time to show their best work and don't require the debt of a college degree in a specific major (whose knowledge is probably largely irrelevant to your day-to-day coding).
[+] [-] thot_experiment|1 year ago|reply
[+] [-] kazinator|1 year ago|reply
Selecting people for a job is literally gatekeeping. The company has the equivalent of a gate (or perhaps an actual one), and most people are kept out of it by the fact that they are not employees or authorized visitors.
No part of would-be employee screening can be faulted for being gatekeeping; i.e. being that which it is.
[+] [-] pockmarked19|1 year ago|reply
[+] [-] RadiozRadioz|1 year ago|reply
I think performance under pressure is a virtue. An important job is never going to be entirely free from stress - you want somebody reliable who will take that in their stride, you don't want someone who will buckle when things get difficult.
I'm all for in-person live collaborative problem solving, be it on a whiteboard or just a discussion. You see first-hand exactly what the person has in their memory, their problem solving techniques, how quickly they get things, their communication skills, and yes, their ability to work under pressure. If done correctly and collaboratively, you get a dry-run of a real design meeting and have some feeling of what it would be like to work with the person.
[+] [-] jaredklewis|1 year ago|reply
[+] [-] gopher_space|1 year ago|reply
At what point do you question an approach so easily gamed, or any derived metric?
[+] [-] lhamil64|1 year ago|reply
[+] [-] aguaviva|1 year ago|reply
No, it's biased against people who perform perfectly well (sometimes exceptionally well) under real, actual pressure. But who do not take kindly to the bullshit / theatrical pressure typical of the standard interview context, these days. And to companies that just can't tell the difference (or are under the delusion that performance in the latter category is in some way predictive of performance in the former).
Take home project? It's too much work to do for free.
It's more that the companies simply abuse the process in various callous and careless ways -- either by assigning projects with inadequate specification and/or unknown goalposts (or plainly unrealistic expectations of the actual time required, given these ambiguities); or simply assigning scores of these assignments (often automatically to every candidate who applies) when in fact they have no intention of even looking at the vast majority of the submissions.
Easily ameliorated by simply paying people for their time.
[+] [-] unknown|1 year ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] medicore_duck|1 year ago|reply
[+] [-] cleanerbob|1 year ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] davedx|1 year ago|reply
What a bizarre way to begin a working relationship.
[+] [-] colinb|1 year ago|reply
Lots of eye scanning while looking above the window they’d been typing into. Pauses. Big pastes. One of my excellent colleagues noticed that the candidate made use of exciting C++ casts before ever defining the variable’s types. Complete inability to explain or debug the code just written.
So. Frustrating in two dimensions. First a waste of time for everyone. Second, occasional signs of real ability make me think the candidate might’ve made it work honestly. The fool.
This, and this alone, makes me pine for in-person interviews. But I suspect those won’t be back for some time. (For good reasons that are out of scope here.)
[+] [-] pavlov|1 year ago|reply
It barely made sense when these were conducted in person, and it’s completely inane over video meeting.
Instead of grilling people, talk to them. Give them meaningful take-home exercises that you can discuss together during the interview. If they can explain the decisions they made and discuss alternatives and trade-offs, that’s a much better indicator of job performance than pretending to invent a leetcode party trick algorithm in 10 minutes.
[+] [-] toast0|1 year ago|reply
Both the candidate and the interviewer need to take time out of their day for the interview. If it's an in-person interview, the candidate also takes travel time etc, which could be more disruptive.
But it takes almost no time to give a take home problem, so there's potential for a significant assymetry in time spent between candidate and employer.
[+] [-] krisgenre|1 year ago|reply
[+] [-] unknown|1 year ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] jasode|1 year ago|reply
Companies already know about cheat methods like this and candidates still have to demonstrate skills in-person on a whiteboard in a 2nd round of tech interviews.
A high-paying FAANG job isn't going to hire candidates based on just one remote Zoom tech interview.
That still may not deter some folks and they'll try to continue to find some cheating technique to use in front of the whiteboard. In that case, some creativity is going to be required. E.g. : https://www.google.com/search?q=chess+cheating+anal+beads
The issue is that "chess board moves" is very low bandwidth and can be efficiently encoded into pseudo-quasi- Morse Code vibration schemes. However, if you're asked to "invert a binary tree" or any other open-ended random puzzles, it's more difficult to compress a secret 2-way high-bandwidth communication with ChatGPT into a hidden butt plug. (But then again, if a candidate is actually able to fool people with hidden ChatGPT hacks in a face-to-face interview, maybe FAANG should hire them based on that alone.)
Keep on the lookout for a github repo with ChatGPT butt-plug communication.
[+] [-] trunnell|1 year ago|reply
But I predict this won’t do what the authors claim: it won’t fix anything, and it won’t change technical interviews that much. At most it might increase the number of companies that require remote candidates to fly in and interview in person to do the same practical coding problems they used to do online. Which would be the standard from just a few years ago, anyway.
Practical coding problems (also known as work simulation interviews) are the most effective and least biased tools available for evaluating candidates. Not every hiring manager does a good job using these tools, but if you see misuse, take it as a sign that the manager might not be good to work for.
I have trouble understanding the authors thinking here that anything would be worth the cost of this: it’s a trust-busting tool where people are deceiving their potential employer. Trust is foundational to everything, in work and in life. We need more trust in our society, not less.
[+] [-] sangeeth96|1 year ago|reply
Had something in the works when I first got to know about multimodal GPT and electron made it super simple to prototype something. Refined it a bit to even do the invisible window thing after feedback from my peers. Didn’t have the ahem courage to do it.
Also recently noticed there are actual companies around this space who are marketing this off as “interview assistance”. Two of them I’m aware of:
1. https://www.senseicopilot.com/
2. https://www.finalroundai.com/
——
I’m sure the knee-jerk reaction from the tech industry to these tools would be:
1. Return to in-person interviews
2. Force install spyware/vanguard like crap to scan your whole personal computer before doing the interview
If you are a tech leader/senior engineer with influence on these matters, I *HOPE*, that this is not the path you take. It’s high time FAANG and others stop gatekeeping with these useless rounds that are equivalent to forcing people to hand-solve complex math equations instead of using calculators. I also partly blame the YT influencers who keep peddling this BS but they will stop if the companies themselves take a stance.
You can rather use the same 1 hour slots to have a conversation, pair program on a realistic problem required for the role you’re hiring for where you and the interviewee can both benefit from the knowledge transfer. I’ve tried this in many of the interviews I’ve conducted and always went away learning something from an excellent candidate or a candidate who didn’t meet the expectations, going out knowing where they fall short.
[+] [-] 05|1 year ago|reply
People who professionally cheat on online exams just use an HDMI splitter/capture card to inject whatever image they need using a second computer. It’s a lost game.
For offline interviews there are hidden earpieces etc.
[+] [-] rvz|1 year ago|reply
On-site interviews should be the standard path to take to detect the frauds and cheaters before they become potential bad hires.
Online technical assessments now have little added value given that AI tools like finalround.ai, etc just make it easy for frauds to cheat the technical interview.
This is actually a strong argument to a return to on-site interviews and should just draw the line on this and detect the frauds altogether.
[+] [-] qwer1234321|1 year ago|reply
I'd rather be rejected than got job I'm not qualified to do, that's why I never prepare for interview above studying the actual company- and that is more to give me proper signal if I want to work for them, I want to be motivated to make move on more than just money.
I also have never done leetcode, though I like competitive programming problems, especially bot programming contests on codingame.com
[+] [-] shlant|1 year ago|reply
As many people have pointed out, the interview process has diverged from real-world, day-to-day tasks you would be expected to accomplish once you get the job. Not actually being able to do a leetcode test (either due to lacking knowledge or interview stress) might not have any reflection on someones ability to succeed in the role they are interviewing for. How many people are dealing with sorting algorithms or traversing binary trees without access to the internet as part of their job?
[+] [-] tamimio|1 year ago|reply
You and me both. I just read a bit about the company before applying for the job. In the interview, I ask the interviewer only two questions: what’s the management style? Is it a servant leadership style with autonomous work, or is it a hierarchical task-based one? The second question is, what does an average day-to-day job look like? Sure, there are few stressful days and others are relaxed, but on average you can tell. Is it chaotic, always running against deadlines and having new tasks thrown at you, or is everything sorted out properly? Sometimes, I also ask about the meetings. I personally don’t like useless meetings. A lot of middle management uses meetings as part of the power dynamics and exerting power rather than actually discussing and solving issues.
[+] [-] vunderba|1 year ago|reply
It's no different than if you had a much more technically competent friend off-screen feeding you the answers.
[+] [-] bastawhiz|1 year ago|reply
[+] [-] wojciechpolak|1 year ago|reply
[+] [-] rahimnathwani|1 year ago|reply
https://github.com/ibttf/interview-coder/blob/main/electron%...
[+] [-] codedokode|1 year ago|reply
In my experience, LLMs are pretty bad with low-level languages like Rust/C when you need to deal with pointers and ownership, avoid extra copies.
Another option is to ask for something impossible, as LLMs usually do not admit inability to solve the problem and prefer to hallucinate a fictional solution.
[+] [-] thesaintlives|1 year ago|reply
[+] [-] bartread|1 year ago|reply
I was doing a 45 minute screener interview with a guy the other day who I could see kept glancing over at another window or screen as he was typing in code. Every couple of characters or so he was pausing looking over, then he’d type a handful more characters, then pause and glance again. He was typing incredibly slowly as well, like a character or two per second, even when he was typing. It was honestly a bit of a weird experience to watch unfolding. His solutions were spot on though.
I didn’t make an issue of it, partly because I already had other concerns as well. I can’t think of a situation where there’s anything to gain by getting into an argument with a candidate: I simply didn’t invite him to the next interview stage.
[+] [-] hiAndrewQuinn|1 year ago|reply
Technical competence happens to be much easier to test for than most of the other factors, and it can compensate to some degree for e.g. bad interpersonal skills. This is indeed part of why tech is such an autism-friendly field. But I've only seen a few people get let go for being great team players, excellent requirements analysts, etc., but just totally unable to code - for better or worse.
(More common is they get shifted to a role which better aligns with their "true" skillset. Why didn't they get this role in the first place? Again: Hard to test for.)
[+] [-] tags2k|1 year ago|reply
[+] [-] mda|1 year ago|reply
[+] [-] kstenerud|1 year ago|reply
That's not quite where things are now, but the initial phases are beginning to show.
[+] [-] fasthandle|1 year ago|reply
Someone without the confidence to hire someone without going through a bunch of hoops to justify themselves is even less likely to admit humility and say they were wrong. Which makes places that employ these interview techniques terribly passive aggressive places to be.
[+] [-] cynicalsecurity|1 year ago|reply
[+] [-] andai|1 year ago|reply
A colleague yesterday was telling me about how much he and all his friends lied to get their jobs, and he suggested I do the same, because if I don't, I'm competing against people who do, and said that's unfair (for me).
It wasn't even an office job, but I've seen the same thing there too. (Also at university...)
[+] [-] tjpnz|1 year ago|reply
[+] [-] mog_dev|1 year ago|reply
[+] [-] tail_exchange|1 year ago|reply
Honestly, it's hard to blame the company. If the employee is willing to lie and cheat even before they were hired, it's expected that companies will take away their tool to do it: remote calls and WFH. As always, the honest worker gets shafted.
[+] [-] rqtwteye|1 year ago|reply
For some reason (legal?) we stopped and now we are doing interviews that have a way worse correlation.
[+] [-] neilv|1 year ago|reply
[+] [-] gtirloni|1 year ago|reply
[+] [-] rvz|1 year ago|reply
All these online assessment solutions such as leetcode, hackerrank, etc are essentially close to useless given all these AI based cheaters and LLM products being used by candidates.
On-site interviews it is then, and this time you cannot use those LLMs to save you.
[+] [-] unknown|1 year ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] dambi0|1 year ago|reply
Other than a bit of practice it would be completely undetectable visually. It’s extra nice that we encourage thinking out loud.
We should assume people are doing this. The solution is interviews that don’t require information that can be looked up or in-person interviews or permitting the use of AI.