There are people who literally say this and then you hire them -- they turn out to be complete duds. I'm genuinely curious because I'm hiring right now: by what mechanism would I discover that you have these skillsets and are good at what you do?
You have to build a repertoire of questions that defeat rote memorization, prove real experience, and show genuine ability to solve unseen problems...
They could remember the exact type signature of standard library functions.
They could define a Monad instance from memory at the speed they could type.
But you couldn't ask them a single question outside of what was presented at lectures.
They couldn't solve a single assignment. They were stuck on rote learning.
I'd blame their educational system, because it was quite consistent (sample size = 3).
The classical example: Teacher says X, the whole class repeats in choir X.
Also, re technical questions, I don't think anyone is saying that you can't ask any technical questions whatsoever, I think the concern is about giving people abstract, theoretical CS problems that will never actually come up on the job, on the very iffy assumption that their performance while being asked to dance for a committee in high-pressure job interview situation is going to be reflective of their actual skills. (And more broadly, that a good programmer must be quick on their feet with schoolboy-style CS puzzles that are basically irrelevant to most roles.)
I think de-facto fulltime jobs i've seen end up kind of like that - if you don't work out in X months, nobody will shed a tear about kicking you out - but this is still perceived as a more expensive operation that should be avoided by having a "proper" interview process. On which nobody can ever agree, but that's the sentiment.
Both parties can terminate the employment agreement within a week for (usually) the fist three month of employment.
No stigma involved.
Leetcode et al. are just testing rote memory, there's no need to have candidates actually type out solutions its a waste of time. So long as they can articulate what solution they would use, why, and what other solutions they considered that's all you really need to be concerned with.
When I do interviews (probably limited compared to you but some) I do it like I wish someone would interview me.
I focused purely on curiosity. how many things disparate things are they interested in, the things that overlap with my knowledge I probe deep. I believe in Einsteins quote.
"I have no special talents. I am only passionately curious."
If someone knows about how RDMA and GPU MIGS work they are probably pretty damn interested in how HPC clusters function. More importantly can they compress this information and explain it so that a non technical person could understand?
There are so many endless number of questions I could ask someone to prob their knowledge of a technical field it kind of upsets me that most of the time people ask the most shallow of questions.
I believe this is because most people actually study their fields a very limited amount, because most people are honestly not truly interested in what they do.
The biggest implication of this is that I may be able to tell if someone has this trait but I understand that the majority of people could not as they literally don't know the things they could ask.
Asking system designs of me if you aren't knowledgable of the field would probably be the easiest to see the complexity of systems I can build.