About halfway through it clicked that this person was just typing whatever I asked them into ChatGPT and then reciting me the answer :(
If I sense something amiss, my opening is simply for them to tell me about themselves with no further context or direction.
Normal candidates will start asking me what I want to know as they trickle out the things they're most proud of. They'll ramble for a bit and then eventually I will pull on some threads they gave to get the ball rolling.
Bad candidates will either freeze, start reading their resume to me, not talk about work, or just start saying nonsense. Maybe all of the above. I give an extra shot to those who freeze by giving them a nudge, but I wrap it up immediately with the rest.
> “ start reading their resume to me […] or just start saying nonsense”
From:
> “ trickle out the things they're most proud of. They'll ramble for a bit”
Generally rambling and nonsense are similar, and resumes contain trickles of things that people are most proud of.
Example: "Oh well I've worked with React before. It was an interesting project. It was for an ecommerce project. (endless silence after)"
"Start saying nonsense" means they're just making things up.
Example: "So yeah I've used git before. It's a cool programming language. It reminds me of C. I love programming."
Still, I ask the question in more or less the same way during interviews. How people respond is more interesting than what they respond with.
Occasional mild confusion in a good candidate is worth stumping the bad ones often. I do feel slightly bad, and I admit it's slightly rude, but it works and the interview process is what it is.
By the end of the interview, the rough start is hopefully forgotten. If you ever get this question upfront again hopefully you understand why and roll with it.
Just wondering if you have any data that supports the idea that those people would not perform well in a role, or just that it's very hard to tell anything about them in an interview!
Like I said, the interviewing process is not much of a science. I'm nowhere close to the only person who does this. I've been on the candidate side of the interview process too you know.
At the end of the day you have to make a decision and if someone doesn't make it easy for you to hire them, then they don't get the job mostly.
I have been overridden a couple of times and candidates were hired that I thought were poor. In both cases I was right about their weaknesses, but in one case they had strengths I did not acknowledge and they were excellent. The other one was a disaster!
Why not just ask that then? "Tell me about yourself" is just a bad open-ended question. I've been in enough interviews to anticipate generic bad questions like that or "what's your biggest weakness" style questions, but not everyone has.
Hiring managers frequently can't differentiate between people who are knowledgeable and people who are just good at interviewing. I've coached many of my peers and done lots of coaching with success because at the end of the day, interviews are about taking advantage of the information asymmetry between your actual experience and what the hiring manager can actually know.
Because that's not all I want to know. I want to see the first things that surface in their mind and what they enjoy talking about. It's not a trick question and the only wrong answers are very clearly wrong sometimes even to those who don't work in software.
> Hiring managers frequently can't differentiate between people who are knowledgeable and people who are just good at interviewing.
I don't agree with this at all. We don't have "hiring managers". That's the problem right there. What the hell are they going to know about the position if they're not in it?
The developers have always done the interviewing of candidates at every place I've worked. We know exactly what to ask and what technical answers actually indicate they can get the job done. It's not hard to know what to ask when you actually do the job you're interviewing someone about.
How does that question get to that? I'd guess most of them are thinking 'why did I get asked such a vague question and how should I answer it. Do they want me to talk about my personal life, or maybe they have some weird confirmation bias. If they wanted me to talk about my work life, they'd probably ask right? What a weird question'.
>I don't agree with this at all. We don't have "hiring managers". That's the problem right there. What the hell are they going to know about the position if they're not in it?
You are the hiring manager if you are a manager who is responsible for hiring someone.
I've worked with a lot of managers and sat on lots of hiring panels. Managers who think they are going to play some mind game to get a purer view of someone are always bad interviewers who place huge amounts of stock in some arbitrary reaction to their mind game.
The exceptions are when the role requires and candidate has extraordinary (i.e. 10x) skills then most other typical requirements such as communication or behavior can be relaxed, such roles are not common and handling ( and interviewing) rockstars as a manager is special skill of its own.
[1] Here's a useful summary article: https://hbr.org/2016/04/how-to-take-the-bias-out-of-intervie...
I wouldn't want to overlook a great candidate because I omitted to ask whether they invented UDP, or whatever.
Legacy skills are important too, but those details don't always make the cut in both the resume and job description.
Yes well that's what the interviewer is doing: asking things,
And the interviewer can have a question in their list: Ask job applicant about their strongest skills? (And maybe inform the applicant beforehand if they want to think about what to say)
With a bit of luck and skill you can get through a whole interview and take all your notes and the candidate doesn't even feel when you switch from one question to the other. Start open ended, make sure you can tick the boxes you have to tick from your questionnaire and dig in the threads you need to dig. Some people aren't good at doing this and they need to be more led by the interviewer, in those cases you can easily "adjust down" and be more explicit, but this way you get the best of both worlds.
Standardized notes with specific topics as well as the opportunity for people to tell you about what _they_ think was interesting about those situations, which is hard to predict from just a questionnaire.
If one is trying to determine the top-performing candidate (for the position being hired for), does bias actually interfere with that?
Especially considering the sorts of bias that are likely to be introduced (those adjacent to personality preferences), those who don't fit well are likely to poorly influence coworkers to a degree that negatively impacts total performance of a team.
Sounds like you’re interviewing for a date or a roommate, not an employee.
If a candidate can't do that, they are not a good fit for my company.
Weird of the person to just pipe in ChatGPT but conducting an interview without video is also weird IMO.
And we'd still be using neanderthal tools if everyone just copy-pasted previous work.
But after that we realised the screening worked even better when we input random sentences from the answers into Google and used it to weed out the people who were not just dishonest enough to give a verbatim answer from somewhere without disclosing it, but who very often did so in ways that meant they got it horribly wrong. E.g. another example was the guy who copied and pasted a forum post. Not only was the answer wrong, but it was followed on the forum by a large number of responses from other people explaining why it was wrong.
I'm sure that some people have hooked up the whisper model so that it can tap a desktop audio out and feed ChatGPT too.
I've never had such experience and it seems very low effort.
In any case there's absolutely no risk of someone passing an interview with ChatGPT on our end because it's about seeing how people think and what they've experienced.
Interviews go both ways
As an interviewer you want to avoid being confrontational with your candidates. It's not helpful if they're good candidates, it's not helpful if they're bad-faith candidates like this one (they might be looking for some slip up on your side which makes the interview "illegal" and cause for them to sue your company), it's not helpful if they're simply not fit for the job (but in good-faith) as you don't want to make them feel bad they're not fit for the job.
If you already understood that they are not giving satisfactory answers, or like in this case they're just reading off the chatgpt answers, best to just keep gathering more proof to your decision not to hire them (by asking them more questions which can highlight your reasons) and finish the interview with the good ol' "we'll let you know."
Edit: I had to. Here's a small excerpt: Scalability: Allow the architecture to grow in strength and size.
[1] https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/EarpieceConversa...