4 ms·
They wrote: > If you optimize below 1487 cycles, beating Claude Opus 4.5's best performance at launch, email us at performance-recruiting@anthropic.com with yo
by ahussain 10mo ago
They wrote:
> If you optimize below 1487 cycles, beating Claude Opus 4.5's best performance at launch, email us at performance-recruiting@anthropic.com with your code (and ideally a resume) so we can be appropriately impressed and perhaps discuss interviewing.
That doesn’t seem snarky to me. They said if you beat Opus, not their best solution. Removing “perhaps” (i.e. MAYBE) would be worse since that assumes everyone wants to interview at Anthropic. I guess they could have been friendlier: “if you beat X, we’d love to chat!”
- 0x3f 10mo agoI suppose you could interpret it either way, but having dealt with their interview pipeline I'd choose the snark.
- deleted 10mo ago[deleted]
- dude250711 10mo agoYeah, a nerd bypassed HR and showed their true character. They are swimming in easy money.
- lovich 10mo agoThat paraphrases to "do better than we have publicly admitted most of humanity can do, and we may deign to interview you" It sounds incredibly condescending, if not snarky, but I would classify those adjectives as mostly synonymous.
- throwaway743 10mo agoI took the "perhaps" as a decision to be considered by the applicant, considering they'd be competent enough to get in at a place of their choice, not just anthropic.
- lovich 10mo agoDoes the applicant or the employer decide if an interview happens in your experience? Do you think if the applicants are really in that level of demand that they would be getting a take home test instead of being actively recruited? Legitimately lay out your understanding of a world where an employer is chasing after employees who are high in demand, give them a test that is expected to take hours, and have a hedged bet in their wording, instead of saying we will absolutely hire you if you pass X bar?
- miki123211 10mo agoI suspect this is partially legal CYA. There's more to employees than their raw ability to go below some performance threshold. If somebody passes the test, but lives in an US sanctioned country with no plans to move, is well known for using the n-word on social media or has previously broken an NDA, Anthropic probably doesn't want to interview them.
- andruby 10mo agoI understand how it can be interpreted as snarky, but how could it have been written better? It's a hard path to walk and recruiting/interviewing is inherently sensitive it seems.
- lovich 10mo agoThe original >If you optimize below 1487 cycles, beating Claude Opus 4.5's best performance at launch, email us at performance-recruiting@anthropic.com with your code (and ideally a resume) so we can be appropriately impressed and perhaps discuss interviewing. Not condescending > If you optimize below 1487 cycles, beating Claude Opus 4.5's best performance at launch, email us at performance-recruiting@anthropic.com with your code so we can schedule an interview.
- entrox 10mo agoBut now the meaning is different: you went from a potential interview to a guaranteed one.
- lovich 10mo agoNo fucking shit, I paraphrased Anthropic's comments as > do better than we have publicly admitted most of humanity can do, and we may deign to interview you If you think telling someone that after passing a test that 99.999% of humanity cannot pass, that they _may_ get an interview, you are being snarky/condescending.
- retsibsi 10mo agoThat's not how paraphrasing works. They probably intentionally held back from guaranteeing an interview, for various reasons. One that seems obvious to me is that with the bar set at "Claude Opus 4.5's best performance at launch", it's plausible that someone could meet it by feeding the problem into an LLM. If a bunch of people do that, they won't want to waste time interviewing them all.
- Nevermark 10mo ago