HN Reader

> Interviewing has always been a big can of worms in the software industry. For years, big tech has gone with the LeetCode style questions mixed with a few behavioural and system design rounds. Before that, it was brainteasers.

Before Google, AFAIK, it was ad hoc, among good programmers. I only ever saw people talking with people about what they'd worked on, and about the company.

(And I heard that Microsoft sometimes did massive-ego interviews early on, but fortunately most smart people didn't mimic that.)

Keep in mind, though, that was was before programming was a big-money career. So you had people who were really enthusiastic, and people for whom it was just a decent office job. People who wanted to make lots of money went into medicine, law, or financial.

As soon as the big-money careers were on for software, and word got out about how Google (founded by people with no prior industry experience) interviewed... we got undergrads prepping for interviews. Which was a new thing, and my impression is that the only people who would need to prep for interviews either weren't good, or were some kind of scammer. But then eventually those students, who had no awareness of anything else, thought that that this was normal, and now so many companies just blindly do it.

If we could just make some other profession be easier big money, maybe only people who are genuinely enthusiastic would be interviewing. And we could interview like adults, instead of like teenagers pledging a frat.

For our coding interviews we encourage people to use whatever tools they want. Cursor, Claude, none, doesn’t matter.

What I’m looking for is strong thinking and problem solving. Sometimes someone uses AI to sort of parallelize their brain, and I’m impressed. Others show me their aptitude without any advanced tools at all.

What I can’t stand is the lazy AI candidates. People who I know can code, asking Claude to write a function that does something completely trivial and then saying literally nothing in the 30 seconds that it “thinks”. They’re just not trying. They’re not leveraging anything, they’re outsourcing. It’s just so sad to set how quickly people are to be lazy, to me it’s like ordering food delivery from the place under your building.

I’ve conducted about 60 interviews this year, and have spotted a lot of AI usage.

At first I was quite concerned, then I realized that in nearly all cases I’d spotted usage, a pattern stood out.

Of the folks I spotted, all spoke far too clearly and linearly when it came to problem solving. No self doubt, no suggestion of different approaches and appearance of thought, just a clear A->B solution. Then, because they often didn’t ask any requirements questions beyond what I initially asked, the solution would be inadequate.

The opinion I came to is that even in the best Pre-AI era interviews I conducted, most engineers contemplate ideas, change their mind, ask clarifying questions. Folks mindlessly using AI don’t do this and instead just treat me as the prompt input and repeat it back. Regardless of if they were using AI or not, I won’t know ultimately, they still fail to meet my bar.

Sure, some more clever folks will mix or limit their LLM usage and get past me, but oh well.

The article implies that somewhat, before AI the leetcode/brainteaser/behavioral interview process had somewhat acceptable results.

The reality is that AI just blew up something that was a pile of garbage, and the result is exactly what you'd expect.

We all treat interviews in this industry as a human resources problem, when in reality is an engineering problem.

The people with the skills to assess technical competency are even more scarce than actual engineers (b/c they would be engineers with people skills for interviewing), and that kind of people is usually very very busy to be bothered with what's a (again, perceived) human resources problem.

Then the rest is just random HR personnel pretending that they know what they're talking about. AI just exposed (even more) how incompetent they are.

Interviews are fundamentally really difficult to get right. On one side, you could try to create the best fairest standardized interview process based on certain metrics, but people will eventually optimize on how well they can do on the standardized interview, making it less effective. On the other side, you could create a customized ad hoc interview to try to learn as much about the candidate as possible, and have them do a work trial for a few days to ensure they're the right candidate, but this takes a ton of time and effort on both the company and the candidate.

I personally think the best interview format is the candidate doing a take home project and giving a presentation on it. It feels like the most comprehensive yet minimal way to assess a candidate on a variety of metrics, tests coding ability in the project, real system design rather than hypothetical, communication skills, and depth of understanding on the project when the interviewer asks follow-up questions. It would be difficult to cheat this with AI since you would need a solid understanding of the whole project for the presentation.

I interviewed a guy a couple of months ago that had perfect responses to every tech question I threw at him. He even did really well on the white boarding session. The only thing was he would wait for 10-20 seconds to respond to everything. Not long enough to get called out but just long enough to notice. He aced everything. He’s a horrible employee, a senior that doesn’t seem to know anything. I almost suggested he start using his interview LLM when regular folks were asking him questions.

If companies are going back to physical onsites but are using remote interviewers, then maybe it makes more sense to have interview centers. They'd be like testing centers --- device lockers, multiple cameras, nearby proctor, shitty desktops from the 2010s with even worse keyboards --- but just for interviews.

I am teaching a coding class, and we had to switch to in person interview/viva assessment about the code written by students, to deal with AI written code. It works, but it requires a lot of extra effort on our side. I don't know if it is sustainable...

I’ve mentioned it before, but it’s not just that people “cheat” during interviews with an LLM…it’s that they have atrophied a lot of their basic skills because they’ve become dependent on it.

Honestly, the only ways around it for me are

1. Have in person interviews on a whiteboard. Pseudocode is okay.

2. Find questions that trip up LLMs. I’m lucky because my specific domain is one where LLMs are really bad at because we deal with hierarchical and temporal data. They’re easy for a human but the multi dimensional complexity trips up every LLM I’ve tried.

3. Prepare edge cases that require the candidate to reconsider their initial approach. LLMs are pretty obvious when they throw out things wholesale

It's funny how this article seems to repeat itself halfway through, like it was written by AI

I still think how many golf balls fit in a 747 is a good interview question. No one needs to give me a number but someone could really wow me but outlining a real plan to estimate this, tell me how you would subcontract estimating the size of the golf ball and the plane. It's not about a right or wrong answer but explaining to me how you think. I do software and hardware interviews and always did them in person so we can focus on how a candidate thinks. You can answer every question wrong in my interview but still be above the bar because of how they show me they can think.

I don’t understand how offline interviewing is needed to catch ai use, not counting take homes.

Surely just asking the candidate to lean a bit back on the web interview and then having a regular talk without him reaching for the keyboard is enough? I guess they can have some in between layer hearing the conversation and posting tips but even then it would be obvious someone’s reading from a sheet.

Maybe it’s time to ask deeper questions, ask how to reduce complexity while preserving meaning. Doing real pair programming with shared remote code and simulate as much as possible a real day-to-day environment. Not all companies search for the same kind of developers. Some don’t really care about the person as long as the tech skills are there. Some don’t look for the brightest in favor of a better cultural match with the team. Genuine remote interviews aren’t easy but it also depends on the interviewer’s skills. We’ve been touted for year that AI will replace developers, would Elon replace the engineers working on the software of it’s rockets with AI ? It depends what’s at stake. I bet their interviews are quite specific and researched thoroughly. We can find better ways to create a real connexion in the interviews and still make sure the tech skills are sound without leet code. We also need developers who master the use of AI and have real skills of thinking before and designing and deep review code skills

Companies being forced to overhaul their interview processes is certainly an unexpected side-effect of the insurgence of LLMs.

On the other hand, encouraging employees to adopt "AI" in their workflows, while at the same time banning "AI" on interviews, seems a bit hypocritical - at least from my perspective. One might argue that this is about dishonesty, and yes, I agree. However, AI-centric companies apparently include AI usage in employee KPIs, so I'm not sure how much they value the raw/non-augmented skill-set of their individual workers.

Of course, in all other cases, not disclosing AI usage is quite a dick move.

Universities and education overall also had their foundation detonated by AI. Some Stanford classes now do 15 minute tricky exams to reduce the chance of cheating with AI (it takes some time to type it so the point is to make the exam so short that one can't physically cheat well). I am not sure what the solution for this mess is going to be.

So many words just to say interview process is broken. It always been that way , anyone really think that someone that prepared and solve few leet code question can plan complete distributed system?

The reality is that no correlation was found between interview success and success at work especially for SW engineers, AI toola didn't change it not remote interviews.

If AI can solve all of your interview questions trivially, maybe you should figure out how to use AI to do the job itself.

AI is breaking more than interviews. I recently overheard someone who is studying to be a psychiatric nurse practitioner (they are already a RN) via an online program say “ChatGPT is my new best friend.” We are doomed.

I agree with the article. Sadly, I have seen candidates cheating, and have hired those I suspected were cheating in hindsight.

It is a horrific drag on the team to have the wrong engineer in a seat.

If we can’t sus out who is cheating and who is legitimate, then the only answer is that we as a field have to move towards “hire fast, fire fast.”

Right now, we generally fire slow. But we can’t have the wrong engineer in a seat for six months while you go though a PIP and performance cycle waiting for a yearly layoff. Management and HR need to get comfortable with firing people in 3 weeks as opposed to 6 months. You need more frequent one-off decisions based on an individual’s contributions and potential.

If you can’t fix the interview process, you need more PIP culture.

Welp, back to nepotism, I guess.

I do in-person whiteboard interviews.

While I agree LLMs have forever changed the interviewing game, I also strongly disagree with deeming slop code as "perfect" and "optimal".

There's a lot of shitty code made my LLMs, even today. So maybe we should lean in, and get people to critique generated code with the interviewer. Besides, being able to talk through, review, and discuss code is more important than the initial creation.

> Then there’s the pacing. A human pauses to think. AI-assisted candidates pause to receive a perfect answer. You can mostly feel the rhythm shift. Their eyes drift slightly. You think we don’t see that, don’t you?

I really hope most interviewers have at least the barebones skills to be able to discern AI-using interviewees, like what the author claims to have. I'm trying to get hired at the junior level, and the thought of competing with people who have no qualms with effectively cheating in real time is pretty scary. I'm human, I will inevitably not know something or make minor missteps - someone with an AI or a quick-witted friend by their side can spit out perfect, fully-rounded, flawless, HR-optimized stories and replies with a satisfying conclusion for the behavioral questions, and basically always-correct, optimal solutions for the technical questions.

Interviews should be in-person.