Doesn't even have to be AI. Give me some random file from the Linux kernel and I could probably explain everything to you if you gave me a few hours. But that doesn't mean I would ever be able to write that code.
The other implication here is that if a candidate can use AI for a take home and ace the interview, then maybe the company doesn't have as tough of problems as it thought and it could fill this seat quickly. Not a bad problem to have.
Leetcode for CRUD app positions is overkill.
I think a lot of experienced people's brains lock up in an interview when asked simple questions because they assume that they're expected to skip straight past the "obvious" solution and go straight for some crazy algorithm or explain the fine points of memory/time tradeoff. This often doesn't present as intended - it looks to the interviewer like you don't even know the basics and are grasping at straws trying to sound smart.
Prior to ChatGPT coming out, I gave a take home test to sort roman numerals.
What before was a "here's a take home that you can do in an hour and I can check the 'did you write the code reasonably?'" is now a 30 seconds in ChatGPT with comments embedded in it that would make an "explain how this function works" to be less useful. https://chatgpt.com/share/688cd543-e9f0-8011-bb79-bd7ac73b3f...
When next there's an interview for a programmer, strongly suggest that it be in person with a whiteboard instead to mitigate the risks of North Korean IT workers and developers who are reliant on an LLM for each task.
Would you screen out Linus Torvalds because he hypothetically doesn’t want to come in to a physical office for an interview?
Hiring managers should think long and hard in a data-driven way about whether the office presence is so necessary that you are willing to miss out on the best candidates who have the luxury of being picky.
Is it true scientifically that an in-person interview day results in better candidate quality or is that just a vibe?
I think eliminating top talent who refuse to step foot in an office and are rare enough to be able to maintain that demand is a lot of quality people being left out of your talent pool. I thought during the pandemic we already proved by numerous studies that in-office workers are less productive.
My company philosophy would be more like, put the burden of identifying quality talent on the employer rather than the employee. Put the candidate through the minimum effort required to screen them and identify standout talent. Then when you find that standout talent you roll out the red carpet and focus on convincing them to work at your company.
I think it’s a human social instincts thing and not a quantitative thing. There might be a better way but we default to the social ritual because ape brain is most comfortable with it.
One in-person day costs a nearby candidate about 3 days, and a more remote candidate anything from a week to a couple of months depending mostly on where you are. And yeah, it also costs some money that maybe you will reimburse.
It doesn't cost you much, that's for sure. But if it's for a full-remote position, it's absolutely not a "the cost is nothing" situation and the candidate refusing it for some random company in a random stage of the interview is absolutely reasonable.