4 ms·

It's pretty obvious when someone's input focus changes to nothing or when their mouse leaves the screen entirely, or you could just ask to see the display setti

It's pretty obvious when someone's input focus changes to nothing or when their mouse leaves the screen entirely, or you could just ask to see the display settings to begin. Doesn't solve for multiple computers but it's pretty obvious in real time when someone's actual attention drifts or they suddenly have abilities they didn't have before. Either way, screen sharing beats whiteboards. Even if we throw our hands up and give up, we'll be firing frauds before the probationary period ends.

OutOfHere 2y ago
There is nothing fraudulent about using LLMs. If people can use them on the job, it's okay to use them on the interview. They're the calculators of tomorrow if not of today. Interviewing just needs to adapt such as by assessing one's open source projects and contributions. Not much more is needed. And if the candidate completely misrepresents their open source profile, this can be handled by an initial contract-to-hire period.
- kortilla 2y ago
  > There is nothing fraudulent about using LLMs. There is if you’re asked not to.
  - OutOfHere 2y ago
    Negative. They are not the law.
    - kortilla 2y ago
      What are you talking about? If you lie to get a job, you are committing fraud. The company is not making any law here.
- bigstrat2003 2y ago
  I agree that there's nothing fraudulent with using a tool you would use on the job when you are interviewing. But in no way are LLMs equivalent to calculators. Calculators actually give the correct answer reliably, unlike LLMs. A sporadically reliable tool is worse than no tool at all.
  - OutOfHere 2y ago
    LLMs have come a long way. If you give gpt-o3-mini the same interview question five times, chances are good that it will get it right all five times. Yes, it's not a calculator, but it's approaching one.
- evilduck 2y ago
  Using AI secretly in an interview setting where you were told the constraints excluded them or the interview required everything to be on the screen share even if they were permitted is fraudulent behavior. It’s not much different than having a surrogate interviewee at that point. You’d only being doing it to deceive the interviewer. Open source contributions is a bad metric for interviewing too. People have lives outside a computer, if they aren’t doing open source contributions in their free time outside of work I wouldn’t hold that against them. If someone has those that’s great and I’d take a look, but I’m not disqualifying someone else for not working for free. Someone doing OSS as an interviewing badge of honor is a chump in my book. At least do it for principled reasons.

OutOfHere 2y ago

There is nothing fraudulent about using LLMs. If people can use them on the job, it's okay to use them on the interview. They're the calculators of tomorrow if not of today. Interviewing just needs to adapt such as by assessing one's open source projects and contributions. Not much more is needed. And if the candidate completely misrepresents their open source profile, this can be handled by an initial contract-to-hire period.

kortilla 2y ago
> There is nothing fraudulent about using LLMs. There is if you’re asked not to.
- OutOfHere 2y ago
  Negative. They are not the law.
  - kortilla 2y ago
    What are you talking about? If you lie to get a job, you are committing fraud. The company is not making any law here.
bigstrat2003 2y ago
I agree that there's nothing fraudulent with using a tool you would use on the job when you are interviewing. But in no way are LLMs equivalent to calculators. Calculators actually give the correct answer reliably, unlike LLMs. A sporadically reliable tool is worse than no tool at all.
- OutOfHere 2y ago
  LLMs have come a long way. If you give gpt-o3-mini the same interview question five times, chances are good that it will get it right all five times. Yes, it's not a calculator, but it's approaching one.
evilduck 2y ago
Using AI secretly in an interview setting where you were told the constraints excluded them or the interview required everything to be on the screen share even if they were permitted is fraudulent behavior. It’s not much different than having a surrogate interviewee at that point. You’d only being doing it to deceive the interviewer. Open source contributions is a bad metric for interviewing too. People have lives outside a computer, if they aren’t doing open source contributions in their free time outside of work I wouldn’t hold that against them. If someone has those that’s great and I’d take a look, but I’m not disqualifying someone else for not working for free. Someone doing OSS as an interviewing badge of honor is a chump in my book. At least do it for principled reasons.