4 ms·

So, assuming they didn't know and approve, you cheated.

lcnPylGDnU4H9OF 3y ago
Dirty, dirty cheater! Sounds like they would have been able to perform the job duties so I'm not sure why one should care.
- jacques_chester 3y ago
  That someone has the skills for a job is distinct from whether they are able to uphold a simple moral principle like "don't cheat".
  - lcnPylGDnU4H9OF 3y ago
    The interviewer is full of themself if they think someone who can do the job cheated in the interview.
- ThrowawayR2 3y ago
  Those who lie about one thing are likely to lie about many others.
  - InvertedRhodium 3y ago
    Given that literally every person alive lies about some things, I'm not sure how much value that observation brings to the discussion.
    - sethammons 3y ago
      Curious outlook. I, for one, avoid lying. The closest I get is omission. I'm not interested in remembering false realities depending on the person I'm talking with. The last lie I recall was a number of years ago where I said to a store clerk that I had recently been somewhere when in fact it was not very recent. Immediately after I felt bad. I value honesty.
      - InvertedRhodium 3y ago
        Lying is such a fundamental part of human psychology that we lie to ourselves without even knowing we're doing it, and children learn to lie without any instructions. I wouldn't go so far as to say that it's instinctual, but it's very close to it. Taking it even a step further - your memory is imperfect, the degree to which you can accurately recall events is significantly poorer than most people believe, which leads to incidental lies. We call them mistakes, but from the outside perspective that's just a question of intent. That being said, despite my pessimism towards human nature, I too value honesty. But, like everyone, I lie occasionally - and I note that you don't claim to not lie, nor to have never lied. I'd call it honesty on a best efforts basis.
- dataflow 3y ago
  There is literally not enough information to tell if they can perform their job duties or not.
  - lcnPylGDnU4H9OF 3y ago
    It's a fair point that I am making this assumption. At any rate, my comment could instead read: > [If one assumes that the candidate] would have been able to perform the job duties I'm not sure why [they] should care. This is what I mean; I can see why an interviewer thinks they've been cheated or that a candidate was dishonest but that doesn't mean that the interviewer even has a successful system for determining if a candidate can perform the job duties. A candidate who cheated -- from the perspective of the interviewer, I guess -- but still manages to adequately perform in their role very plainly did not cheat from a less biased perspective. What is that interviewer even thinking? How could that person have cheated?
    - staunton 3y ago
      > determining if a candidate can perform the job duties. A candidate who cheated -- from the perspective of the interviewer, I guess -- but still manages to adequately perform in their role very plainly did not cheat That's not what anyone means when they say "cheating". Cheating means to violate the conditions and assumptions of an examination or contest. For example, if a chess grandmaster uses an AI implant to win a game and gets caught, it doesn't make it OK if they could consistently win against the same opponent even without the AI.
      - lcnPylGDnU4H9OF 3y ago
        Okay, that does make the position more understandable but I still don’t quite get it. Perhaps more accurately, I see these assumptions which others don’t necessarily share. The people claiming cheater have different opinions from the supposed cheaters. I recall a Starcraft 2 match[0] involving a person with an apparently psychosomatic wrist injury that was only painful while they’re playing on stage. Their opponent was seeming to draw out a game they were losing in an attempt to trigger the pain; it was a viable strategy given the “best of” series they were playing. That’s certainly not going to be accounted for in the rules and one might believe that it’s an underhanded way to win. But both players are in the top echelons of game knowledge, experience, and skill; that’s the only reason either player made it to this particular match-up. The player with the wrist injury ultimately had it act up and lost the series. Did the winner deserve to win? Should the other player be considered the better player? The assumptions of the game rules and what’s “fair” might be different per player; who’s right, who’s wrong, and why? What about when prize money is involved; that guy who won by the written rules just doesn’t deserve it because of unspoken rules? These questions don’t seem to have obvious answers, so of course I challenge assumptions. 0: I’m looking for the VOD I watched. Edit: I believe it was here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DS2XIyNDlSA https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DS2XIyNDlSA
- jurynulifcation 3y ago
  That job could have gone to someone who like actually knew what they were doing and was honest lol not sure why you want to defend professional and intellectual dishonesty?
  - lcnPylGDnU4H9OF 3y ago
    > intellectual dishonesty This suggestion that a person who can adequately perform job duties could have even possibly cheated in their job interview is intellectually dishonest. If they had to cheat to get the job we should be looking at the interviewer. Why did the qualified candidate have to cheat? Why is whatever-they-did even considered cheating?
    - JohnFen 3y ago
      > Why did the qualified candidate have to cheat? If they're qualified, they didn't have to cheat. If they're not, then they did. Either way, they're dishonest and that means they're not a desirable hire.
      - lcnPylGDnU4H9OF 3y ago
        > If they're qualified, they didn't have to cheat. (Just rewriting to specify my understanding: If the candidate was qualified, they didn't have to cheat even if they did cheat. They could have simply not cheated and been selected by the merits of their qualifications.) This argument relies on the false premise that an interviewer will always accurately determine a candidate's qualifications. That a candidate is not qualified to pass an interview is not the same that a candidate is not qualified for the job for which they're being interviewed.
        JohnFen 3y ago
        True, most interviewing processes are very imperfect by necessity and some qualified people will be mistakenly filtered out. But also, there are usually several-to-many applicants for a position that are all qualified, and by necessity most of them won't get the position. Additionally, technical qualifications is only a part of what an employer is looking for. There are other things that are at least equally important -- how well the applicant would fit into the team, how trustworthy they are, etc. It's about a lot more than just technical skillset.
- JohnFen 3y ago
  People care because such a person isn't terribly trustworthy. There's more to being a valuable employee than just being able to perform the job duties.
yieldcrv 3y ago
Tech hiring is way too dicey right now to give af, and its what I would do on the job anyway, most likely a local ai when company code is involved
outside415 3y ago
I disclosed my use of chatgpt throughout the process and the hiring manager was excited that I was on the cutting edge. I used it for the project they gave me as well. :) I don't think my friends disclosed that they were using it.
- jacques_chester 3y ago
  Thank you for the clarification. I am glad you disclosed and disappointed your friends didn't.

Dirty, dirty cheater! Sounds like they would have been able to perform the job duties so I'm not sure why one should care.

jacques_chester 3y ago
That someone has the skills for a job is distinct from whether they are able to uphold a simple moral principle like "don't cheat".
- lcnPylGDnU4H9OF 3y ago
  The interviewer is full of themself if they think someone who can do the job cheated in the interview.
ThrowawayR2 3y ago
Those who lie about one thing are likely to lie about many others.
- InvertedRhodium 3y ago
  Given that literally every person alive lies about some things, I'm not sure how much value that observation brings to the discussion.
  - sethammons 3y ago
    Curious outlook. I, for one, avoid lying. The closest I get is omission. I'm not interested in remembering false realities depending on the person I'm talking with. The last lie I recall was a number of years ago where I said to a store clerk that I had recently been somewhere when in fact it was not very recent. Immediately after I felt bad. I value honesty.
    - InvertedRhodium 3y ago
      Lying is such a fundamental part of human psychology that we lie to ourselves without even knowing we're doing it, and children learn to lie without any instructions. I wouldn't go so far as to say that it's instinctual, but it's very close to it. Taking it even a step further - your memory is imperfect, the degree to which you can accurately recall events is significantly poorer than most people believe, which leads to incidental lies. We call them mistakes, but from the outside perspective that's just a question of intent. That being said, despite my pessimism towards human nature, I too value honesty. But, like everyone, I lie occasionally - and I note that you don't claim to not lie, nor to have never lied. I'd call it honesty on a best efforts basis.
dataflow 3y ago
There is literally not enough information to tell if they can perform their job duties or not.
- lcnPylGDnU4H9OF 3y ago
  It's a fair point that I am making this assumption. At any rate, my comment could instead read: > [If one assumes that the candidate] would have been able to perform the job duties I'm not sure why [they] should care. This is what I mean; I can see why an interviewer thinks they've been cheated or that a candidate was dishonest but that doesn't mean that the interviewer even has a successful system for determining if a candidate can perform the job duties. A candidate who cheated -- from the perspective of the interviewer, I guess -- but still manages to adequately perform in their role very plainly did not cheat from a less biased perspective. What is that interviewer even thinking? How could that person have cheated?
  - staunton 3y ago
    > determining if a candidate can perform the job duties. A candidate who cheated -- from the perspective of the interviewer, I guess -- but still manages to adequately perform in their role very plainly did not cheat That's not what anyone means when they say "cheating". Cheating means to violate the conditions and assumptions of an examination or contest. For example, if a chess grandmaster uses an AI implant to win a game and gets caught, it doesn't make it OK if they could consistently win against the same opponent even without the AI.
    - lcnPylGDnU4H9OF 3y ago
      Okay, that does make the position more understandable but I still don’t quite get it. Perhaps more accurately, I see these assumptions which others don’t necessarily share. The people claiming cheater have different opinions from the supposed cheaters. I recall a Starcraft 2 match[0] involving a person with an apparently psychosomatic wrist injury that was only painful while they’re playing on stage. Their opponent was seeming to draw out a game they were losing in an attempt to trigger the pain; it was a viable strategy given the “best of” series they were playing. That’s certainly not going to be accounted for in the rules and one might believe that it’s an underhanded way to win. But both players are in the top echelons of game knowledge, experience, and skill; that’s the only reason either player made it to this particular match-up. The player with the wrist injury ultimately had it act up and lost the series. Did the winner deserve to win? Should the other player be considered the better player? The assumptions of the game rules and what’s “fair” might be different per player; who’s right, who’s wrong, and why? What about when prize money is involved; that guy who won by the written rules just doesn’t deserve it because of unspoken rules? These questions don’t seem to have obvious answers, so of course I challenge assumptions. 0: I’m looking for the VOD I watched. Edit: I believe it was here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DS2XIyNDlSA https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DS2XIyNDlSA
jurynulifcation 3y ago
That job could have gone to someone who like actually knew what they were doing and was honest lol not sure why you want to defend professional and intellectual dishonesty?
- lcnPylGDnU4H9OF 3y ago
  > intellectual dishonesty This suggestion that a person who can adequately perform job duties could have even possibly cheated in their job interview is intellectually dishonest. If they had to cheat to get the job we should be looking at the interviewer. Why did the qualified candidate have to cheat? Why is whatever-they-did even considered cheating?
  - JohnFen 3y ago
    > Why did the qualified candidate have to cheat? If they're qualified, they didn't have to cheat. If they're not, then they did. Either way, they're dishonest and that means they're not a desirable hire.
    - lcnPylGDnU4H9OF 3y ago
      > If they're qualified, they didn't have to cheat. (Just rewriting to specify my understanding: If the candidate was qualified, they didn't have to cheat even if they did cheat. They could have simply not cheated and been selected by the merits of their qualifications.) This argument relies on the false premise that an interviewer will always accurately determine a candidate's qualifications. That a candidate is not qualified to pass an interview is not the same that a candidate is not qualified for the job for which they're being interviewed.
      - JohnFen 3y ago
        True, most interviewing processes are very imperfect by necessity and some qualified people will be mistakenly filtered out. But also, there are usually several-to-many applicants for a position that are all qualified, and by necessity most of them won't get the position. Additionally, technical qualifications is only a part of what an employer is looking for. There are other things that are at least equally important -- how well the applicant would fit into the team, how trustworthy they are, etc. It's about a lot more than just technical skillset.
JohnFen 3y ago
People care because such a person isn't terribly trustworthy. There's more to being a valuable employee than just being able to perform the job duties.

yieldcrv 3y ago

Tech hiring is way too dicey right now to give af, and its what I would do on the job anyway, most likely a local ai when company code is involved

outside415 3y ago

I disclosed my use of chatgpt throughout the process and the hiring manager was excited that I was on the cutting edge. I used it for the project they gave me as well. :) I don't think my friends disclosed that they were using it.

jacques_chester 3y ago
Thank you for the clarification. I am glad you disclosed and disappointed your friends didn't.