[Peroni]

I'd be interested in seeing if I'm in the minority but there's no world where I'm agreeing to download bespoke software in order to participate in an interview.

>I kept seeing candidates produce near-perfect solutions while struggling to explain even basic trade-offs. Some would go quiet for long stretches, then suddenly type out optimal code extremely quickly. When I probed deeper, it became obvious that what they were writing didn’t match their level of understanding.

Why do you need a tool to detect cheating? Your 'analogue' approach here is the correct one.

[danlah]

That’s definitely a fair point. Currently for the tech company I am at we already require the candidate to download an internal video conferencing application to join the interview so I think it really depends on what you’re used to.

Also to answer your second question we’ve been finding it’s extremely difficult to detect by eye. Also we lack any video evidence to support our claim of cheating which can be problematic when we review the candidates.

As the cheating tools get more advanced I think it’s going to be impossible to detect without some sort of application running on the computer

[Peroni]

I get how your solution solves for on-device cheating tools. Unfortunately, it's really not difficult to have a second device (even just your phone) transcribing audio and processing answers. My point being, if people are going to cheat in interviews, they'll find plenty of creative ways around your tool so I'm not necessarily convinced that tooling is the solution.