4 ms·

This application requirement really bothered me as someone who's autistic and dyslexic. I think visually, and while I have valid ideas and unique perspectives,

by ben30 2y ago

This application requirement really bothered me as someone who's autistic and dyslexic. I think visually, and while I have valid ideas and unique perspectives, I sometimes struggle to convert my visual thoughts into traditional spoken/written language. AI tools are invaluable to me - they help bridge the gap between my visual thinking and the written expression that's expected in professional settings. LLMs are essentially translation tools. I use them to translate my picture-thinking into words, just like others might use spell-checkers or dictation software. They don't change my ideas or insights - they just help me express them in a neurotypical-friendly format. The irony here is that Anthropic is developing AI systems supposedly to benefit humanity, yet their application process explicitly excludes people who use AI as an accessibility tool. It's like telling someone they can't use their usual assistive tools during an application process. When they say they want to evaluate "non-AI-assisted communication skills," they're essentially saying they want to evaluate my ability to communicate without my accessibility tools. For me, AI-assisted communication is actually a more authentic representation of my thoughts. It's not about gaining an unfair advantage - it's about leveling the playing field so my ideas can be understood by others. This seems particularly short-sighted for a company developing AI systems. Shouldn't they want diverse perspectives, including from neurodivergent individuals who might have unique insights into how AI can genuinely help people think and communicate differently?

deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
oneeyedpigeon 2y ago
This is an excellent comment and it more-or-less changes my opinion on this issue. I approached it with an "AI bad" mentality which, if truth be told, I'm still going to hold. But you make a very good argument for why AI should be allowed and carefully monitored. I think it was the spell-checker analogy that really sold me. And this ties in with the whole point that "AI" isn't one thing, it's a huge spectrum. I really don't think there's anything wrong with an interviewee using an editor that highlights their syntax, for example. Where do you draw the line, though? Maybe you just don't. You conduct the interview and, if practical coding is a part of it, you observe the candidate using AI (or not) and assess them accordingly. If they just behave like a dumb proxy, they don't get the job. Beyond that, judge how dependant they are on AI and how well they can use it as a tool. Not easy, but probably better than just outright banning AI.
- ben30 2y ago
  Exactly - being transparent about AI usage in interviews makes much more sense. Using AI effectively is becoming a crucial skill, like knowing how to use any other development tool. Using it well can supercharge productivity, but using it poorly can be counterproductive or even dangerous. It's interesting that most software departments now expect their staff to use AI tools day-to-day, yet many still ban it during interviews. Why not flip this around? Let candidates demonstrate how they actually work with AI. It would be far more valuable to assess someone's judgment and skill in using these tools rather than pretending they don't exist. If a candidate wants to show how they leverage AI in their workflow, that should be seen as a positive - it demonstrates transparency and real-world problem-solving approaches. After all, you're hiring someone for how they'll actually work, not how they perform in an artificial AI-free environment that doesn't reflect reality. The key isn't whether someone uses AI, but how effectively they use it as part of their broader skillset. That's what companies should really be evaluating.
jaggederest 2y ago
I feel very similarly. I'm also an extremely visual thinker who has a job as a programmer, and being able to bounce ideas back and forth between a "gifted intern" and myself is invaluable (in the past I used to use actual interns!) I regard it as similar to using a text-to-speech tool for a blind person - who cares how they get their work done? I care about the quality of their work and my ability to interact with them, regardless of the method they use to get there. Another example I would give: imagine there's someone who only works as a pair programmer with their associate. Apart, they are completely useless. Together, they're approximately 150% as productive as any two programmers pairing together. Would you hire them? How much would you pay them as a pair? I submit the right answer is yes, and something north of one full salary split in two. But for bureaucracy I'd love to try it.
hluska 2y ago
I’m going to echo oneeyedpigeon - you changed my opinion completely. Minutes ago, I did not see a thing wrong with what Anthropic was doing. Reading your words completely flipped that. This is exceptional writing and I appreciate your insight. Thanks for proving me wrong and giving me the chance to get closer to being right.

by ben30 2y ago

deleted 2y ago

[deleted]

deleted 2y ago

[deleted]

oneeyedpigeon 2y ago

This is an excellent comment and it more-or-less changes my opinion on this issue. I approached it with an "AI bad" mentality which, if truth be told, I'm still going to hold. But you make a very good argument for why AI should be allowed and carefully monitored. I think it was the spell-checker analogy that really sold me. And this ties in with the whole point that "AI" isn't one thing, it's a huge spectrum. I really don't think there's anything wrong with an interviewee using an editor that highlights their syntax, for example. Where do you draw the line, though? Maybe you just don't. You conduct the interview and, if practical coding is a part of it, you observe the candidate using AI (or not) and assess them accordingly. If they just behave like a dumb proxy, they don't get the job. Beyond that, judge how dependant they are on AI and how well they can use it as a tool. Not easy, but probably better than just outright banning AI.

ben30 2y ago
Exactly - being transparent about AI usage in interviews makes much more sense. Using AI effectively is becoming a crucial skill, like knowing how to use any other development tool. Using it well can supercharge productivity, but using it poorly can be counterproductive or even dangerous. It's interesting that most software departments now expect their staff to use AI tools day-to-day, yet many still ban it during interviews. Why not flip this around? Let candidates demonstrate how they actually work with AI. It would be far more valuable to assess someone's judgment and skill in using these tools rather than pretending they don't exist. If a candidate wants to show how they leverage AI in their workflow, that should be seen as a positive - it demonstrates transparency and real-world problem-solving approaches. After all, you're hiring someone for how they'll actually work, not how they perform in an artificial AI-free environment that doesn't reflect reality. The key isn't whether someone uses AI, but how effectively they use it as part of their broader skillset. That's what companies should really be evaluating.

jaggederest 2y ago

I feel very similarly. I'm also an extremely visual thinker who has a job as a programmer, and being able to bounce ideas back and forth between a "gifted intern" and myself is invaluable (in the past I used to use actual interns!) I regard it as similar to using a text-to-speech tool for a blind person - who cares how they get their work done? I care about the quality of their work and my ability to interact with them, regardless of the method they use to get there. Another example I would give: imagine there's someone who only works as a pair programmer with their associate. Apart, they are completely useless. Together, they're approximately 150% as productive as any two programmers pairing together. Would you hire them? How much would you pay them as a pair? I submit the right answer is yes, and something north of one full salary split in two. But for bureaucracy I'd love to try it.

hluska 2y ago

I’m going to echo oneeyedpigeon - you changed my opinion completely. Minutes ago, I did not see a thing wrong with what Anthropic was doing. Reading your words completely flipped that. This is exceptional writing and I appreciate your insight. Thanks for proving me wrong and giving me the chance to get closer to being right.