[harlequinetcie]

I would ask myself what am I actually paying for here. -- as mentioned in other comments, they could always have a peer next to them during a call, so hallucinations won't do --

+ Using AI is actually cheating or being productive for the role? + Am I worried that they'll do all their job in 5 minutes and afterwards do something else?

Maybe you are worried about them not being able to actually do the job, which probably means the interview process was wrong from the start. Alternatively, the performance expectations may be higher for the role; e.g. what before was 1x now needs to be 5x productivity.

As an alternative, I've heard of many SMBs opting for a model in which the last bit of the hiring process includes some paid work for a week to see how they actually perform, or checking references in depth.

[EliotHerbst]

Hey, to clarify - there is no product here, you are not paying for anything. This is an idea being shared, the web app was built completely for fun (using some retro styles) in about a half hour using some cursor prompts (and reviewing at the end for security) and will never become a product in the future.

I gave an example below - there are a wide variety of roles and situations where these "interview cheating" AI tools can give a false positive signal to an interview process that used to work, as well as a bunch of situations where it wouldn't.

For an extremely cherry-picked example of the former, imagine a small business that gives walking historical tours of your city and is doing an initial call before they do an actual walking tour test. Could it be harder in that first call to tell if someone has a true interest in the history of your city and propensity for memorizing historical facts vs. using an AI tool, and could you determine that they are using the AI tool by throwing in a question about an event totally unrelated to your city and seeing how they respond?