3 ms·
> Your ability to use ChatGPT effectivelly is highly dependent on your technical competence. Ok, then that seems like a pretty reasonable thing to assess? > I
by sanderjd 3y ago
> Your ability to use ChatGPT effectivelly is highly dependent on your technical competence.
Ok, then that seems like a pretty reasonable thing to assess?
> I'd rather have a developer on my team that demonstrates high technical competence than one that is GPT-skilled, but doesn't know what questions to ask GPT nor how to judge its responses.
But "what questions does the candidate ask an LLM and how do they judge its responses" is part of the interview, if you don't forbid them from using an LLM!
Now, if they don't want to use these tools, if that's not part of their normal process while working, then that's totally fine too. But if they're comfortable with these tools, if they are part of their normal set of things they use for their work, then you're doing yourself a disservice by designing an interview process that is incapable of accomodating that.
- rmbyrro 3y agoThe interview is imperfect, very quick, and it's already hard to measure competence. As the article shows, it's much easier to mimick competence with the help of a chatbot. That obviously doesn't mean one actually is competent to produce good work in a real setting.
- sanderjd 3y ago> As the article shows, it's much easier to mimick competence with the help of a chatbot. I don't think that's what the article shows. I think it shows that it's useless to ask "leetcode" questions and focus on the code produced rather than expecting candidates to walk through their thought process and show what tools they're using to aid it.