I'm pretty skeptical of GPT/LLMs in general (I think they can be a fantastic tool, but I think their current abilities to generate creative solutions are wildly

I'm pretty skeptical of GPT/LLMs in general (I think they can be a fantastic tool, but I think their current abilities to generate creative solutions are wildly overblown even by a lot of people that should recognize their limitations better), but in response to this: > If ChatGPT responses were enough to do a job, then why would a company hire a human? By the same token if ChatGPT responses are enough to pass the interview, then how can you believe your interview process isn't fundamentally broken? And if ChatGPT responses aren't enough to pass the interview, then who cares if people use them? If the interview properly models the job being hired for those candidates should either fail the interview or not depending upon their ability to leap back and forth between the tool and their own ability to make use of its output which should map very well to their ability to do the same in an actual work capacity.