3 ms·

Would You Hire a Calculator?

8 points by kimjune01 1y ago

kimjune01 1y ago
I'm doing the rounds on interviews this week, and noticed that companies were not adapting to agentic coding that rewrote the software engineer's job description.
orionblastar 1y ago
You need programmers and software engineers to program to remove bugs the AI made that it couldn't detect.
- kimjune01 1y ago
  then removing those bugs should be the skill to be assessed
  - orionblastar 1y ago
    I learned debugging back in college. I am a Super Debugger and can find bugs in someone else's code, my code, or AI code.
NoahZuniga 1y ago
> data structure & algorithms questions My understanding is that these questions are a proxy for intelligence, and they were asked because Google and the like want smart employees. If that's why you're asking these questions, than testing using agents in the interview process doesn't make sense, because: 1. If you're hiring smart people, you can probably teach them how to use agents. (training someone to use agents isn't very hard) 2. If someone is smarter, you might in general expect them to be more capable of finding bugs in AI code.
- kimjune01 1y ago
  Thanks for reading and the thoughtful reply! > proxy for intelligence you're right, but it's too easy to gamify, or cheat on. > can probably teach them how to use agents I've met smart people that were anti-agentic coding. It's not a direct translation. > finding bugs in AI code I think this would be a better proxy for job performance than DS&A.
tuatoru 1y ago
Will there be a market for artisanal, hand-crafted code?
- kimjune01 1y ago
  For low-level or custom hardware interfaces, hand-crafted code won't go away.
vrighter 1y ago
Because the LLMs are useless unless you already know the answer to what you're looking for. At least if you're trying to be a serious, competent programmer. And if you're using an LLM to do your job for you in an interview, then you extremely probably are not smart enough to notice its constant, inevitable mistakes.
- kimjune01 1y ago
  > LLM to do your job for you in an interview Same argument goes for letting LLM to do my job for me at the job. Plenty of smart people use LLMs to help code at work, and they fix the mistakes. Using an LLM doesn't mean accept its output without verifying that it works.
  - vrighter 1y ago
    the only way I would trust you to verify anything an llm outputs, is for me to know that you can do it withoum an llm. If not, I have no reason to trust that your "verification" is actually verifying anything

8 points by kimjune01 1y ago

I'm doing the rounds on interviews this week, and noticed that companies were not adapting to agentic coding that rewrote the software engineer's job description.

orionblastar 1y ago

You need programmers and software engineers to program to remove bugs the AI made that it couldn't detect.

kimjune01 1y ago
then removing those bugs should be the skill to be assessed
- orionblastar 1y ago
  I learned debugging back in college. I am a Super Debugger and can find bugs in someone else's code, my code, or AI code.

NoahZuniga 1y ago

> data structure & algorithms questions My understanding is that these questions are a proxy for intelligence, and they were asked because Google and the like want smart employees. If that's why you're asking these questions, than testing using agents in the interview process doesn't make sense, because: 1. If you're hiring smart people, you can probably teach them how to use agents. (training someone to use agents isn't very hard) 2. If someone is smarter, you might in general expect them to be more capable of finding bugs in AI code.

kimjune01 1y ago
Thanks for reading and the thoughtful reply! > proxy for intelligence you're right, but it's too easy to gamify, or cheat on. > can probably teach them how to use agents I've met smart people that were anti-agentic coding. It's not a direct translation. > finding bugs in AI code I think this would be a better proxy for job performance than DS&A.

tuatoru 1y ago

Will there be a market for artisanal, hand-crafted code?

kimjune01 1y ago
For low-level or custom hardware interfaces, hand-crafted code won't go away.

vrighter 1y ago

Because the LLMs are useless unless you already know the answer to what you're looking for. At least if you're trying to be a serious, competent programmer. And if you're using an LLM to do your job for you in an interview, then you extremely probably are not smart enough to notice its constant, inevitable mistakes.

kimjune01 1y ago
> LLM to do your job for you in an interview Same argument goes for letting LLM to do my job for me at the job. Plenty of smart people use LLMs to help code at work, and they fix the mistakes. Using an LLM doesn't mean accept its output without verifying that it works.
- vrighter 1y ago
  the only way I would trust you to verify anything an llm outputs, is for me to know that you can do it withoum an llm. If not, I have no reason to trust that your "verification" is actually verifying anything