I'm glad ChatGPT could be the end of leetcode interviews.
I worry though that it'll just be the end of online leetcode interviews and employers will bring people back into the office to interview.
I worry though that it'll just be the end of online leetcode interviews and employers will bring people back into the office to interview.
Anecdotally: During COVID when remote jobs started going mainstream, the number of weird and scammy applications we received spiked. We also had a couple problems with people joining remote but keeping their old jobs or getting a second job (discovered following investigation of their underperformance and inconsistent availability).
When we started telling interview candidates that we'd fly them in and put them in a hotel for the last stage of the interview, most of the questionable candidates started dropping out of the interview pipeline by themselves.
In many cases we didn't actually bother flying them out. Just the thought of having to come into the office for a single day was enough of a filter.
Was it perfect? No, of course not. We had one candidate who couldn't be away from his family for medical reasons and we happily accommodated. We also had one hire who went through the whole process and proceeded to do almost no work at all for 6 months unless a manager was breathing down his neck at every step.
But it cut down on the number of problem candidates massively.
This unfortunately happened pretty often pre-pandemic/in-office. The majority of the teams I've worked on across a few companies have had one or more donothings. The bigger the team, the more unfocused management, the more likely to hang on.
Don't feel bad about firing them: you were only ever their J2.
The reverse, yes I would mind.
I had an interview like this recently that was quite pleasant, where the interviewers and I ended up collaboratively solving the problem together because we all had different approaches - I think it had the unintended effect of demonstrating teamwork and helped the interview go quite positively.
I’m sorry but lol no. There are many places where you can’t do that in an interview because there are many employers that want to test for technical knowledge, not knowledge of tools, which anyone can learn on the job and which change as fast as fads come and go.
I find this entire thread astounding in how so many people come in the defense of ignorance and outright incompetence. If ChatGPT responses were enough to do a job, then why would a company hire a human? There would be very little value add from a warm body than just paying for the ChatGPT API and automating integration.
And corollary to that: if your job is possible to do with a huge number of AI tools, then your work is likely the menial kind and you should seriously dread being laid off and being obsoleted in the near future.
> If ChatGPT responses were enough to do a job, then why would a company hire a human?
By the same token if ChatGPT responses are enough to pass the interview, then how can you believe your interview process isn't fundamentally broken?
And if ChatGPT responses aren't enough to pass the interview, then who cares if people use them? If the interview properly models the job being hired for those candidates should either fail the interview or not depending upon their ability to leap back and forth between the tool and their own ability to make use of its output which should map very well to their ability to do the same in an actual work capacity.
I bet you’re fun at parties. In all seriousness though, most IT work is menial and mundane. Backends are backends, front ends are front ends, and data moves between the two. People like to overcomplicate “tech” I think largely because of insecurity issues. Now that said, some emerging industries such as the budding corporate space race do require advanced technical knowledge. Yet for some reason glorified grocery apps want rocket engineers at their company when an average engineer could just muck around with mundane tools and piecemeal something together. The truth is the kind of gate keeping you’re advocating for is what limits businesses from realizing value quickly and is designed to artificially limit hiring.
If I saw a candidate using Google or GitHub search to try to look up the entire solution then I'd stop them. That's missing the point.
No chance in hell leetcoding is going away. It will be even more important, with even greater ceremony.
> employers will bring people back into the office to interview.
Nothing stops people from getting the questions they'll be asked ahead of time from insiders, like their friends or a recruiter, which is really how people have been cheating. This is how it is possible to be Google and have identical standards for years but nonetheless observe overall quality of hires go down.
In a way it's probably equivalent to students who just bang everything into their head before the semester exam and forget it all again two weeks after. (Not that that's a bad thing, it just doesn't really say anything about a candidate)
I'd take that bet. Leetcoding is something that GPT 4 is very good at doing -- and it does it faster than any engineer can type, let alone think.
Hopefully it does. If an LLM can do that, why should I have to do that, both in an interview or outside of one. LLM-assisted programming is where it's at, and there's no going back. Being able to do a leetcode isn't a good test of a candidate in the first place.
It is the age of take-home assignments that take days to complete.
Only absolutely incompetent people would want this over leetcode.