3 ms·
I saw something similar in a recent interview. I brought in a candidate who did not meet all of the typical resume check boxes, but who had a long history of su
by cgearhart 3y ago
I saw something similar in a recent interview. I brought in a candidate who did not meet all of the typical resume check boxes, but who had a long history of success on highly technical problems. These type of candidates can bring very new perspectives to our team, but they’re often a long shot in interviews.
In this case the candidate chose to use a language that I don’t know well and they said they weren’t especially familiar with either. Then they struggled a lot to even talk through the question and it was a grind to work through each line of code. I couldn’t offer much help, and they were very clearly unsure at each step.
But when we clicked “run” on the code, we were both surprised to see that it ran on the first try. Not only that, but it already worked for all of the “but what about…” follow up edge cases. And the candidate didn’t know why… “oh, I guess the language just works that way.”
I don’t know if they were cheating, but the entire thing was far outside any other interview experience I’ve ever had — and fits the pattern of what I’d expect an LLM to produce.
- giraffe_lady 3y agothis is me using ocaml
- littlekey 3y agoSeems like there's a silver lining here. It reinforces the idea that the answer to the problem is not necessarily the important part. When you can trivially provide a correct answer, it places more emphasis on the skill of being able to actually explain and work through the logic as a way to distinguish yourself from other candidates.
- rideontime 3y agoYou didn't hire them, right?