8 ms·

> please do not use AI assistants during the application process. We want to understand your personal interest in Anthropic without mediation through an AI syst

• deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
• jon-wood 2y ago
  > AI made your homework? Guess what, the homework is a proxy for your talent, and it didn't make your talent. At least in theory that’s not what homework is. Homework should be exercises to allow practicing whatever technique you’re trying to learn, because most people learn best by repeatedly doing a thing rather than reading a few chapters of a book. By applying an LLM to the problem you’re just practicing how to use an LLM, which may be useful in its own right, but will turn you into a one trick pony who’s left unable to do anything they can’t use an LLM for.
  • shipp02 2y ago
    What if you use it to get unstuck from a problem? Then come back and learn more about what you got stuck on. That seems like responsible use.
    • croes 2y ago
      But how likely is that?
      • Keyframe 2y ago
        doesn't sound much different than googling and finding a snippet that gets you unstuck. This might be a shortcut to the same thing.
        • Dylan16807 2y ago
          But they asked how likely it is. My guess is it's a pretty small fraction of problems where you need to get unstuck.
          • Keyframe 2y ago
            fair enough
      • janalsncm 2y ago
        It was the same way I think a lot of us used textbooks back in the day. Can’t figure out how to solve a problem, so look around for a similar setup in the chapter. If AI is just a search over all information, this makes that process faster. I guess the downside is there was arguably something to be learned searching through the chapter as well.
        • weebull 2y ago
          Homework problems are normally geared to the text book that is being used for the class. They might take you through the same steps, developing the knowledge in the same order. Using another source is probably going to mess you up.
        • its-summertime 2y ago
          > something to be learned searching through the chapter as well Learning to mentally sort through and find links between concepts is probably the primary benefit of homework
  • otabdeveloper4 2y ago
    Um, get with the times, luddite. You can use an LLM for everything, including curing cancer and fixing climate change. (I still mentally cringe as I remember the posts about Disney and Marvel going out of business because of Stable Diffusion. That certainly didn't age well.)
    • croes 2y ago
      AI did my gym workout, still no muscles.
    • arkey 2y ago
      It would be great if all technologies freed us and gave us more time to do useful or constructive stuff instead. But the truth is, and AI is a very good example of this, a lot of these technologies are just making people dumb. I'm not saying they are essentially bad, or that they are not useful at all, far from that. But it's about the use they are given. > You can use an LLM for everything, including curing cancer and fixing climate change. Maybe, yes. But the danger is rather in all the things you no longer feel you have a need to do, like learning a language, or how to properly write, or read. LLM for everything is like the fast-food of information. Cheap, unhealthy, and sometimes addicting.
  • netdevphoenix 2y ago
    You are assuming that they only know how to use an LLM, that doesn't follow from knowing that someone uses an LLM. Chances are they got others skill. A bit like someone who doesn't know how to make a fire and relies on a lighter. He doesn't know how to do it, but knows how to start, knows how to ask for help, knows where to look for help and how to apply the information received
• lazide 2y ago
  Eh, you can only learn how to do something when you actually do it (generally). AI just lets you get deeper down the fake-it-until-you-make-it hole. At some point it will actually matter that you know how to do something, and good luck then. Either for you, or for your customers, or both.
• djtango 2y ago
  Consider the case where there is a non Native English speaker and they use AI to misrepresent the standard of written English communication. Assume their command of English is insufficient to get the job ultimately. They've just wasted their own time and the company's time in that situation. I imagine Anthropic is not short of applicants...
  • llm_trw 2y ago
    >Hey Claude, translate this to Swahili from English. Ok, now translate my response from Swahili to English. Thanks. We're close to the point where using a human -> stt -> llm -> tts -> human pipeline you can do real time high quality bi directional spoken translation on a desktop.
    • YurgenJurgensen 2y ago
      Why not just send the Swahili and let them MTL on the other end? At least then they have the original if there’s any ambiguity. I’ve read multiple LLM job applications, and every single time I’d rather have just read the prompt. It’d be a quarter of the length and contain no less information.
• jstummbillig 2y ago
  It's a warning sign, designed to improve the signal they are interested in marginally. Some n-% of applicants will reconsider. That's all it needs to do, to make it worth it, because putting that one sentence there required very little effort.
• llm_trw 2y ago
  Homework is a proxy for your retention of information and a guide to what you should review. That somehow schools started assigning grades to it is as nonsensically barbaric as public bare ass caning was 80 years ago and driven by the same instinct.
  • jvvw 2y ago
    I agree on the grades part. And I was just thinking that the university that I went to never gave us grades during the year (the only exception I can think of was when we did practice exam papers so we had an idea how we were doing). I think homework is more than a guide to what you should review though. It's partly so that the teacher can find out what students have learned/understood so they can adapt their teaching appropriately. It's also because using class/contact time to do work that can be done independently isn't always the best use of that time (at least once students are willing and capable of doing that work independently).
• danw1979 2y ago
  > AI made your homework? Guess what, the homework is a proxy for your talent, and it didn't make your talent. Well, no. Homework is an aid to learning and LLM output is a shortcut for doing the thinking and typing yourself. Copy and pasting some ChatGPT slop into your GCSE CS assignment (as I caught my 14yo doing last night…) isn’t learning (he hadn’t even read it) - it’s just chucking some text that might be passable at the examiner to see if you can get away with it. Likewise, recruitment is a numbers game for under qualified applicants. Using the same shortcuts to increase the number of jobs you apply for will ultimately “pay off” but you’re only getting a short term advantage. You still haven’t really got the chops to do the job.
  • deleted 2y ago
    [deleted]
• neilv 2y ago
  > You can't ask people to not use AI when careful, responsible use is undetectable. You can't make a rule, if people can cheat undetectably?
  • Double_a_92 2y ago
    You can, but it would be pointless since it would just filter out some honest people.
    • oneeyedpigeon 2y ago
      But this is exactly what we already do. Most exams have a "no cheating" rule, even though it's perfectly possible to cheat. The point is to discourage people from doing so, not to make it impossible.
      • marcosdumay 2y ago
        Sorry, but if you are completely unable to catch cheaters, then the point becomes to punish people that follows rules.
• hollowturtle 2y ago
  Can't disagree more. Talent is built and perfected upon thousands hours practice, LLMs just make you lazy. One thing people with seniority in the field don't realize, as I guess you are, is that LLMs don't help develop "muscle memory" in young practioners, it just make them miserable, often caged in an infinite feedback loop of bug fixing or trying to untangle a code mess. They may extract some value by using it for studying but I doubt it and only goes so far, when started I remember being able to extract so much knowledge just by reading a book about algorithms, try to reimplement things, break them, and so on. Today I can use an LLM because I'm wise enough and I can spot wrong answers, but still feel becoming a bit lazy.
  • 0x1062 2y ago
    AI is a tool, and tool use is not lazy.
    • GlacierFox 2y ago
      The point he's making is, we still have to learn to use tools no? There still had to he some knowledge there or else you're just sat sifting through all the crap the AI spits out endlessly for the rest of your life. The op wrote his comment like it's a complete replacement rather than an enhancement.
    • saagarjha 2y ago
      Tool use can make you lazy if you're not careful.
    • 4ndr3vv 2y ago
      You could similarly consider driving a car as "a tool that helps me get to X quicker". Now tell me cars don't make you lazy.
    • eviks 2y ago
      It is if the way to learn is doing it without a tool. Imagine using a robot to lift weights if you want to grow your own muscle mass. "Robot is a tool"
• StanislavPetrov 2y ago
  >AI made your homework? Guess what, the homework is a proxy for your talent, and it didn't make your talent. There's a difference between knowing how to use a calculator and knowing how to do math. The same goes for AI. Being talented at giving AI prompts doesn't mean you are generally talented or have AI-unrelated talents desired by an employer.
• madeofpalk 2y ago
  I've seen applicants use AI to answer questions during the 'behavioral' Q&A-style interviews. Those applicants are 'cheating', and it defeats the whole purpose as we want to understand the candidate and their experience, not what LLMs will regurgitate. Thankfully it's usually pretty easy to spot this so it's basically an immediate rejection.
  • Applejinx 2y ago
    You could reasonably argue that they're not cheating, indeed they're being very behaviorally revealing and you do understand everything you need to understand about them. Too bad for them, but works for you… I'm imagining a hiring workflow, for a role that is not 'specifically use AI for a thing', in which there is no suggestion that you shouldn't use AI systems for any part of the interview. It's just that it's an auto-fail, and if someone doesn't bother to hide it it's 'thanks for your time, bye!'. And if they work to hide it, you know they're dishonest, also an auto-fail.
    • deleted 2y ago
      [deleted]
  • Draiken 2y ago
    If the company is doing behavioral Q&A interviews, I hope they're getting as many bad applicants as possible. Adding a load of pseudo-science to the already horrible process of looking for a job is definitely not what we need. I'll never submit myself to pseudo-IQ tests and word association questions for a job that will 99.9% of the time ask you to build CRUD applications. The lengths that companies go to avoid doing a proper job at hiring people (one of the most important jobs they need to do) with automatic screening and these types of interviews is astonishing. Good on whoever uses AI for that kind of shit. They want bullshit so why not use the best bullshit generators of our time? You want to talk to me and get a feeling about how I'd behave? That's totally normal and expected. But if you want to get a bunch of written text to then run sentiment analysis on it and get a score on how "good" it is? Screw that.
    • 2y ago
• throwawayqqq11 2y ago
  > In life there is no cheating This really rubs me the wrong way because it reflects the shallow, borderline sociopathic stance of nowadays entrepreneurship. Obedience to rules and honest attitudes is more than just an annoyance in your way to get rich, its the foundation of cooperation -- our civilization.
• psychoslave 2y ago
  >In life there is no cheating. You're just optimizing for the wrong thing. AI made your homework? Guess what, the homework is a proxy for your talent, and it didn't make your talent. No, the homework is a proxy for measuring what the homework provider is interested to evaluate (hopefully). Talent is a vague word, and what we can consider talent worth nurturing might be consider worthless from some other perspective. For example, most schools will happily give you many nation myths to learn and evaluate how much of it you can restitute on demand. They will far less likely ask you to provide you some critics of these myths, to search who created them, with which intentions and which actual effects on people at large scale from different perspective and metrics available out there.
  • deleted 2y ago
    [deleted]
• dkjaudyeqooe 2y ago
  > careful, responsible use is undetectable I think that's wishful thinking. You're underestimating how much people can tell about other people with the smallest amount of information. Humans are highly attuned to social interactions and synthetic responses are more obvious that you think.
  • DFHippie 2y ago
    I was a TA years ago, before there were LLMs one could use to cheat effectively. The professor and I still detected a lot of cheating. The problem was what to do once you've caught it? If you can't prove that it's cheating -- you can't cite the sources copied from -- is it worth the fight? The professor's solution was just to knock down their grades. At that time just downgrading them was justifiable, because though they had copied in someone else's text, they often weren't competent to identify the text that was best to copy, and they had to write some of the text themselves to make it appear a coherent whole and they weren't competent to do that. If they had used LLMs we would have been stuck. We would be sure they had cheated but their essay would still be better than that of many/most of their honest peers who had tried to demonstrate relevant skill and knowledge. I think there is no solution except to stop assigning essays. Writing long form text will be a boutique skill like flint knapping, harvesting wild tubers, and casting bronze swords. (Who knows, the way things are going these skills might be relevant again all too soon.)
• rvba 2y ago
  You can enforce people to not use AI by making the intrview in the office.
• shafyy 2y ago
  > In life there is no cheating Oh, my sweet summer child
• coldtea 2y ago
  >In life there is no cheating Huh? >You're just optimizing for the wrong thing. AI made your homework? Guess what, the homework is a proxy for your talent, and it didn't make your talent. Isn't that the definition of cheating? Presenting a false level of talent you don't possess?