Your comment is excessively dismissive. The irony is that parent actually did what you’re suggesting, tried to talk about the interviewee’s solution and found t

Your comment is excessively dismissive. The irony is that parent actually did what you’re suggesting, tried to talk about the interviewee’s solution and found that they didn’t come across as knowledgeable and experienced enough even though their code suggested otherwise. Whether it’s live coding or take-home is mostly irrelevant. Your proposed alternative is absolutely subject to the same problem, AI-written code and LLM-written mental process. Think more carefully about whether it solves anything and exactly what problem it solves, because it does not solve the problem of people trying to game interviews with AI, your suggestion is potentially worse on that axis. The whole point of doing it live is to get to the talking part that you suggested more quickly. Wouldn’t you rather be discussing your thinking immediately and get a sense for what the real questions are and how you’re doing, and have the opportunity to talk about it, than waste several hours doing it at home trying to write something up without getting clues along the way or being able to ask questions, only to have the next guy get hired because they used AI, or because they’re fine with live coding, or because they’re better at writing than coding, or because they got lucky? You have to live code on the job. Do take a moment to consider what the hiring manager needs and whether take-home problems are either more effective or more efficient for the company. Managers want to find the best candidates, and best involves more than coding, it involves communication and collaboration skills too. Live coding can give some indicators of those things, and take-home problems cannot.