I've simply tell candidates to use AI as part of the interview process now. It functionally changes nothing about the evaluation.

Great, another paid tool to cheat at coding interviews. I guess the future is coming back to on-site interviews only.

This only results in that technical interviews won't be done remote or as homework in the future. Even before covid i wouldn't have recommended this remote interview approach. The by far best results in interviewing were a technical talk-through over their past experiences or some short pair-developer task (mob programming or refinement) were they can use whatever tool they want if they lack experience to talk about - i wanna see how they tackle real problems by asking good questions. Hardly to fake even with advanced ai tools if the interviewer is a very experienced engineer.

Related:

The Leader of the LeetCode Rebellion: An Interview with Roy Lee (70 points, 9 days ago, 44 comments) https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43497848

I got kicked out of Columbia for taking a stand against LeetCode interviews (20 points, 9 days ago, 18 comments) https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43497652

So at our company, we stopped asking algorithm questions in interviews.

Instead, our process starts with a one-hour technical conversation. We talk through the candidate's experience, how they think about systems and products, and dig into technical topics relevant to our stack (Ruby on Rails). This includes things like API design, ActiveRecord, SQL, caching, and security.

If that goes well, the next step is a collaborative pull request review. We have a test project with a few PRs, and we walk through one with the candidate. We give them context on the project, then ask for their feedback. We're looking for how they communicate, whether they spot design issues (like overly long parameter lists or complex functions), and how they reason about potential bugs.

This has worked really well for us. We've built a strong, pragmatic engineering team. Unfortunately though, none of us now remember how to invert a binary tree without Googling it..

I think if I were hiring remotely right now I’d look to create exercises that could be done “open book” using AI, but that I’d validated against current models as something they don’t do very well on their own. There are still tons of areas where the training data is thinner or very outdated, and there’s plenty of signal in seeing whether someone can work through that on their own and fix the things the LLM does wrong, or if they’ve entirely outsourced their problem solving ability.

When doing a tech interview, watch the person’s eyes. Pay attention to the pacing of their answers.

If they seem to be reading intently, that’s a flag. If their answers are fluffy and vague and then get very specific, that’s a flag.

Tools like this might not show up on shared screens, but people who use them behave unnaturally. It’s pretty obvious if you know what to look for.

I’ve been doing dozens of technical interviews per month and it’s pretty clear when the person is Googling answers or using some ai tool.

Seems like a whole new market is opening for people looking to game the hiring process. In my short few years being involved in interviewing, I've seen 1) obvious AI use off screen/a second person feeding answers 2) Person A showing up for the interview process and Person B showing up after being hired 3) candidates covering their lips moving with a large headset mic and someone else speaking for them.

Wild

I interview people regularly. These are easy to detect… not in a direct way but i can tell when you are being assisted by AI. 3 so far this month out of 12, for those who were going to ask how frequently.