3 ms·

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

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.

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.