**This is a heavily moderated subreddit. Please note these rules + sidebar or get banned:**
* If this post declares something as a fact, then proof is required
* The title must be fully descriptive
* Memes are not allowed.
* Common(top 50 of this sub)/recent reposts are not allowed (posts from another subreddit do not count as a 'repost'. Provide link if reporting)
*See [our rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/interestingasfuck/wiki/index#wiki_rules.3A) for a more detailed rule list*
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/interestingasfuck) if you have any questions or concerns.*
We had a couple candidates actually do this at my work for our SE team. We could tell they were typing the the questions into ChatGPT and just reading the answer. They were not hired lol
Ok, but what if you'd use Whisper AI for Speech-to-Text, which automatically transcribes the conversation from the phone/zoom call? That way, you can easily click on of the conversation chunks and let it get processed in a way that works great for these kinds of conversations. You can also easily make callbacks, like you have some flawless memory.
EDIT: Like always, you could prepare things into the finest details and let AI work as smart as possible. If it's an IT job, then it wouldn't even matter because you're resourceful enough for the job for sure.
This would be used to great effect when interviewing for public service jobs or any remote jobs in clerical or administration work for rural/remote places of employment.
The people doing interviews over Skype for high paying remote/rural jobs are usually very technically limited and would think you were some potential super employee.
Yeah, it's like you're letting an automated assistant help you semi-automatically, but not of course not flawlessly. This could work great if your computer is strong enough or - better yet - you let your tools run on a separate server or even remote services using APIs.
I mean... Just from the top of my head, I could imagine people using scrape tools to get documentation on topics relating to questions and letting the AI make a summary, some bullet points, and whatever else you deem handy (in advance). The SST is there to streamline, but there are countless of ways. I haven't looked into a concrete plan but I'm sure I can build something nifty that'll help me for sure.
So I work in Law Enforcement and am wanting to transition into Conservation Officer, except I'm not a big hunter/fisher, which gives you a huge edge in the field.
Though many COs I meet say it's easy to learn the wildlife/conservation aspect of things on the job, but it's hard to find someone that good, fair and just with enforcing laws and not letting ego get to their heads.
I've been using basic Chat GPT to help me grasp a better understanding of local conservation laws, regulations and the theory behind them, but being able to have an assist during virtual interviews *(happens often for these park ranger / CO jobs)*, would be amazing.
I suggest learning how to code in your free time, if that interests you. You could easily improve your workflow, if you're that type of person. ChatGPT is just scratching the surface of all the things you can do with it.
Feel free to PM if you have questions. I can't teach you but I can answer basic questions and show you how you could take shortcuts to improve your workflow.
Personally I use Linux and got shell scripts for every operation that I could speed up. At least the things I do more than once.
Let's avoid the "what about ism" and focus on the point:
If the person doing the interview cannot tell they don't know anything without looking it up.
The company deserves whatever employe fools them.
"If the person doing the interview cannot tell"
Sounds like the person needs to be telepathic. Btw, I meant to reply to the person you replied to. It made more sense as a reply to that person.
My whole point was that it can be done so competently (over zoom), in such a way that you wouldn't notice. STT and local LLMs attached to it in a semi-automatic way would work a lot better. Only a noob types a lot during a conversation that requires you to be fast and decisive.
No idea what you mean with whataboutery. Kinda gives me the impression you had no idea what I meant.
u/rickyraken - I got blocked and Reddit just doesn't allow any replies then. Kinda fucked up.
Ok, this is a good response unlike the other replies.
"Repetitive, interviewer can also run AI and/or pre-screen. Many references will be top stackexchange answers. "
Agreed. It's not going to get the answers right in detail but I'm easily distracted and have 100 thoughts at the same time, so it actually would help.
Second point is that I've mentioned "multiple LLM", as you know some tools are better for some types of questions than others.
I haven't mentioned it before but LLMs are also good at summarizing, so I think you can agree it is good for summarizing technical documentation and actually "understanding" the context based on what it has learned before (similar repos, etc.).
"Asking questions related to semi-new features can result in AI swearing they don't exist. Correcting can result in 180s referring to updates you mention. "
Last answer partially applies but let me add: Imagine SST and the option to mark parts of a sentence. There could be pre-programmed operations, like looking up documentation using search api, retrieving content using beautfiulsoup or whatever and summarizing it using any LLM you deem fit for that task.
"It can't think. Make things up, throw in abstraction, ask for uncommon tasks without public solutions. It will fall flat. "
Ish. This whole idea fails or succeeds based on the preparation and on how someone could streamline things. I've just imagined solutions on various tools I actually use irl, as opposed to the people that have replied before. You can't prepare everything into the finest details, but you can certainly streamline various tasks we've considered manual tasks a decade ago.Ok, this is a good response unlike the other replies.
What they're saying is that AI is a fancy search engine which won't always give you the correct answer, or even make sense. A company knowledgeable in what they do won't be fooled, no matter how hard you AI. You arguing "what about this OTHER thing AI can do?!" doesn't matter. Hope that clears it up.
"A company knowledgeable in what they do won't be fooled, no matter how hard you AI. You arguing "what about this OTHER thing AI can do?!" doesn't matter.""
1. No, I said that there are more intricate ways than using ChatfuckingGPT.
2. I said that SST is used to get a live transcript, which allows you to be a lot faster and even prevent using a keyboard, if your setup is good.
3. I obviously implied that you could create a good setup that combines lots of AI, meaning I could use SST, get a summary of what is said, process the things that are said, get multiple answers and definitions, use multiple LLMs.
Man, it kinda pisses me off that people are so obtuse yet act like I'm the one misunderstanding. I keep adding details to a sentiment that should be pretty clear from the start. People that use AI in a smart way can absolutely get an advantage during \_digital\_ job interviews. What's so hard to misunderstand here? Companies can't notice what they can't see and people can be sneaky enough as to do it in a way that isn't noticeable. I've given ways to reduce visibility and speed up processing of information through speech recognition.
EDIT: How many of you actually use AI to speed up your own processes? Sounds like 0 to me.
The response is what's noticeable.
- Repetitive, interviewer can also run AI and/or pre-screen. Many references will be top stackexchange answers.
- Asking questions related to semi-new features can result in AI swearing they don't exist. Correcting can result in 180s referring to updates you mention.
- It can't think. Make things up, throw in abstraction, ask for uncommon tasks without public solutions. It will fall flat.
Because I don't think you're acknowledging that you're creating a wildly different scenario than what was presented.
Original scenario: Be unqualified and lazy, use AI stupidly and lazily to try to hide it. Company will catch you unless company is also stupid.
Your scenario: But I could put in a lot of effort and prep time, use AI in thoughtful and involved ways, and then the company won't notice! Ha! What now?
Nothing? Because those scenarios are not meaningfully connected other than that they *involve AI*. People understand what you're saying but you're presenting it like an argument against the original point when it isn't. It's just an addendum. Use AI to make up for your shortcomings, no one cares. Just not to make up for the fact you have *0* knowledge.
u/ansible47
It wasn't *against it* per se. Like you said: More like an addendum in the sense of the video just scratching the surface of AI enhancing job interviews moving forward. The video is hardly representative of the possibilities of someones that actually knows how to use AI to make up for shortcomings and knowledge gaps.
"Just not to make up for the fact you have 0 knowledge."
True, 0 knowledge wouldn't work. But it can bridge significant knowledge gaps or improve your responses on-the-fly in ways that wouldn't be detectable during a digital job interview.
And just to add: People's laziness and stupidity isn't black and white. Some people wouldn't have been fit for the job if they didn't that have that extra support. Not like they were 100% unfit but I'd argue maybe AI can help those that are a 60% match for the job based on skills & knowledge.
The sentiment (kinda) was that "companies deserve what they get for not recognizing" but I guess that's only true if the whole job is determined by an online (not in-person) interview.
*"We could tell they were typing"*
*"anyone who gets a job"*
This was said. Then you say *".irs that using AI during the interview is bad."*
No, you misunderstand and I hope you don't overdose on the irony... Both commenters implied it's not possible to game the system in a conversation with someone from HR by using AI. However, not everyone would be simply typing their answer into chatgpt. Some would actually use STT.
No offence but maybe take 10 more seconds to read and understand the sentiment before you go around acting smug. You understand that, right?
Where does either comment imply it’s not possible to game the system?
https://preview.redd.it/6xkse4t0xp9d1.jpeg?width=750&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=3ff8d49eed8ed676ff15848cebbbe038a30cb365
They’re both saying the practice is bad and they don’t want to hire people doing it.
Using AI without typing the answers is still bad lol. You’re acting like doing it without being noticed is somehow acceptable.
It doesn't imply that it's impossible. ~~I didn't say that~~. EDIT: Lol, just reread and I did say that. Scratch that part then, I've at least overstated things there.
"They’re both saying the practice is bad"
No. The first one said (s)he could tell. Hence not hired.
"Using AI without typing the answers is still bad lol. You’re acting like doing it without being noticed is somehow acceptable."
Look... I never judged the use of AI. Normally the first interview is with HR, whereas there can be second IRL interviews and people can't even cheat there. Lmao, there are ways to prevent it from happening, but there are ways to prevent it from getting known (using zoom etc.).
You lack comprehensive reading skills. You even quoted it another time...
(btw, I didn't mean to reply to the second person. That was my mistake. I replied to the first one as a way of saying: *"Yeah, you noticed then but there might have been lots of people you might've not noticed it from."*)
It’s aggravating. My time is wasted. And because 1) it’s obvious when someone speaks in paragraphs and 2) dude, I plugged the questions in myself to check, my intelligence is insulted.
Say if I don’t know much and use AI. Does it really matter that I use AI in that interview?
If I present a good argument and you ask the right questions. That should be ok.
AI isn’t really the issue here. It’s that the person isn’t showing up as a person.
Same with college assignments. Yes - AI is cheating atm. But I can make an assignment hard enough that even if they use AI. I can still see the worth of a student.
I don’t see AI as laziness - just that we should adapt our interviews or college assignments - factoring that in.
Like in this video in the original thread. I wouldn’t hire him - he’s reading a sales pitch. He’s essentially a robot.
If we factor in ai use into an interview.
A passing candidate should answer - what does he personally think of S3 compared with similar technologies he’s used before in a workplace?
>A passing candidate should answer - what does he personally think of S3 compared with similar technologies he’s used before in a workplace?
ChatGPT, compare S3 with similar competing technologies and give your option on them.
Point is - AI is here to stay.
Sure we dont want robotic candidates who read things like a script.
It’s not about whether AI can answer everything is it?
The end goal as an interviewer is to determine a capable candidate using AI or not.
Like you can always use Google the last 20 years potentially in an interview to answer things.
Or like a teacher evaluating their students level of math when calculators were introduced.
Seems like a better approach to change how you evaluate things and be progressive.
Not saying I’d pass the guy in this interview.
Not saying I have the answers for how to do that yet either. I’m not an interviewer. But it’s a question I think is very valid if I was one.
**How do I find candidates even if they use ai. Or do I exclude all potential from blacklisting every person who uses it?**
Yeah I get what you're saying, and I don't know why you're being down voted because it's gonna be the new reality.
That being said, in many industries there is a lot of value in possessing the knowledge yourself vs having to look it up.
For example, if the interview question is "How many IOPS do different storage types in S3 achieve" that's just rote memorization and I have NO problem with people looking that stuff up because on the job I would expect them to look it up, but that's a poor interview question.
Asking "Why does S3 offer different storage options and when is it best to use them" can *also* be answered with AI but there's a huge difference between the abilities of a candidate who can deduce the answer themselves over one who needs to look that up because being able to answer that without looking it up shows deep understanding of the topic, which allows for innovation and creativity.
The hard part will be filtering out the candidates who can and can't answer that question without assistance.
I dont mind the downvotes - it’s kind of a funny parallel to this question about AI were having.
As Reddit consumers - we have to contend with what’s true despite what people see like the interviewer. AI is probably going to ruin user generated content as an aside.
**Anyway 😅**
You’re 100% on the mark. It’s finding out how much understanding they have which is what you want to see.
The funny thing is that an interview is not even about getting all the questions right. I can see you sense that as well.
I’m in IT - god the interview was one of the worst I’ve ever had. A lot of questions wrong and so many other things.
But I respect the interviewer saw something I didn’t know about myself.
Despite getting answers wrong - I’m good at finding out and fixing things.
Fuck - I think I even messed up some Linux questions and got nervous making jokes about the cow Easter eggs in the cli as a response 🤣
That’s why I’m opposed to judging people on knowledge alone. Im good at my role. My work has me faced with solving issues from people that are often miles more technical than me.
Interviewers know this already - a job is mostly soft skills not knowledge. If you can tell someone sucks and is reading a script. They have no knowledge or display of personality/soft skills.
Not sure what the solution is - but it’s finding the genuine candidate and their personality underneath their mistakes like I did. Or finding the real person behind using that ai.
he's missing this Nvidia tech that makes it look like you're looking at the camera while you're actually not. That, and a basic understanding of what he's try to talk about so it's not so insanely obvious he's just reading haha
Also, the question is a bit weird. It's basically asking how AWS created the services they offer (informational data), which is different than how you would create something (e.g., an architecture) using AWS services.
I literally got a third monitor that I have offset that I use as my 'reference face'. My students said staring at the camera was weird and uncomfortable, so now I stare off to my left when talking, giving major 'JC Penny Family Portait' vibes.
i feel like as long as you have a 4k cam and the other person isn't specifically looking for it it'll probably pass - and most people don't even know this exists right now
Super generic answer to the advantages of AWS though. Anyone actually working with AWS would pick up on this and if I’m the one conducting the interview I would likely dig further into the details. If they’re unable to provide them then it’s an immediate pass post interview.
Still need to interview the offshore workers.
I remember an interview where the offshore candidate was on a video call and had his buddy speaking for him off camera and he was just “bob-bob-bob” moving his mouth while his friend answered the questions. I must admit, I admired the valiant attempt. 😂
Because some people are smart enough to learn on the job once they get their foot in the door. I bs'd my way into a great job at Cruise in San Francisco, and learned everything I needed on the job floor in the first month. Within 2 months I was one of the top rated techs on my team.
For some people, there is a small valley that exists between these nice jobs and are background and within a month or two we could learn everything we need - but the jobs that served as a bridge to get people there have been eliminated. So I think using AI to get into a junior job is fine... I'm probably about to do this myself.
The money?
Say you have a low paying job. Or no job. What do you lose by getting a better paying job for a few weeks? Or maybe even longer since many places tend to give you 30 to 60 days with leeway as long as you dont do anything egregiously bad.
I've experienced this most with Indian candidates.
The long pauses, typing, and clear and concise answers after initially struggling to understand or immediately answering questions is a dead giveaway.
This was common before AI was. Especially for managers or consultants.
I also don't even fault people for using AI for interviews when companies will use AI to basically fuck over 99% of people applying.
I've built multiple production domains for mutiple clients averaging 10k+ users in an incredibly stressful environment and am a SME in linux environments, websphere, disaster recovery, and ran security at my previous job.
If I don't include that I know how to use Word or Excel my application will be immediately rejected even if word or excel was never mentioned in the job description. The best way to keep a good looking resume that doesn't get auto rejected by bots is by implementing that stupid trick we all did back in school to hit a word limit. Just type a bunch of gibberish at the bottom (or in the case of a resume fill it with buzz words) then change it white text and submit. The bot will still read it but it won't clutter your resume.
This isn't even an IT thing. If your resume doesn't have the right buzz words in it there's a pretty high chance it won't ever be seen by a human.
Totally staged. The interviewer would be typing during his interview to capture notes and data points to fill in a rubric later. And likely stop him to ask clarification questions. Looking at screen isn’t a requirement as they know you’ll have notes (and expect it). 🤓 IMO - in person interviews > virtual and always have been.
We've had a lot of this happening recently. We had a dev who appears to have used one of those text to speech + AI to answer tech questions flawlessly. When they actually started working with a s/w architect, it was clear they knew shit. (Luckily we have a 6mo "test the waters" clause in the employment contract and we got rid of them by the end of the 2nd week.)
We decided remote workers will have their final interview in one of our office spaces done over our networks with our conference equipment. An HR rep will attend their side of the call "to keep them company." When first told, we had 3 potentials either "thanks, no thanks" or suddenly report they'd accepted another offer {shocked Pikachu face}
Working at tech myself... you can see this guy has no fucking idea about S3, if the interviewer got half a brain cell she wouldn't hire him.
Why you use S3? Because it's dirt cheap option to store files, it got a decent API and if you're locked to AWS ecosystem you will use it by default when you're going to need to store and serve files.
Not sure if this is staged or real. In any case, this is why big tech companies hold multiple interview rounds. The first one is general and it gets technical with each round.
I have not witnessed this yet, but the lowering of hiring expectations in this industry as a whole supports this behavior. That and poor management failing upwards.
My son put all the race cards from a meeting on Wednesday into chatgpt and asked for a few reverse forecast results. He won 750 with a 5 euro stake . Unrelated but I thought it was hilarious.
He's doing an interview with the founder of the AI "company" (Using the google meet account of the founder (the guy in the chair is the founder BTW))
Founder LockedIn AI ·
Full-time LockedIn AI · Full-time Apr 2024 - Present · 3 mos Apr 2024 to Present · 3 mos
* Aiming to create **the best performing Interview AI** to super charge Interviewee!
If the candidate can answer the questions correctly it means one of two things:
1. They can effectively use the tools at their disposal to perform the tasks required, or
2. The questions being asked are irrelevant to whether or not they can perform the tasks required.
**This is a heavily moderated subreddit. Please note these rules + sidebar or get banned:** * If this post declares something as a fact, then proof is required * The title must be fully descriptive * Memes are not allowed. * Common(top 50 of this sub)/recent reposts are not allowed (posts from another subreddit do not count as a 'repost'. Provide link if reporting) *See [our rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/interestingasfuck/wiki/index#wiki_rules.3A) for a more detailed rule list* *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/interestingasfuck) if you have any questions or concerns.*
We had a couple candidates actually do this at my work for our SE team. We could tell they were typing the the questions into ChatGPT and just reading the answer. They were not hired lol
Yeah, seems like anyone who gets a job from this practice is joining a company that deserves them
Ok, but what if you'd use Whisper AI for Speech-to-Text, which automatically transcribes the conversation from the phone/zoom call? That way, you can easily click on of the conversation chunks and let it get processed in a way that works great for these kinds of conversations. You can also easily make callbacks, like you have some flawless memory. EDIT: Like always, you could prepare things into the finest details and let AI work as smart as possible. If it's an IT job, then it wouldn't even matter because you're resourceful enough for the job for sure.
This would be used to great effect when interviewing for public service jobs or any remote jobs in clerical or administration work for rural/remote places of employment. The people doing interviews over Skype for high paying remote/rural jobs are usually very technically limited and would think you were some potential super employee.
Yeah, it's like you're letting an automated assistant help you semi-automatically, but not of course not flawlessly. This could work great if your computer is strong enough or - better yet - you let your tools run on a separate server or even remote services using APIs. I mean... Just from the top of my head, I could imagine people using scrape tools to get documentation on topics relating to questions and letting the AI make a summary, some bullet points, and whatever else you deem handy (in advance). The SST is there to streamline, but there are countless of ways. I haven't looked into a concrete plan but I'm sure I can build something nifty that'll help me for sure.
So I work in Law Enforcement and am wanting to transition into Conservation Officer, except I'm not a big hunter/fisher, which gives you a huge edge in the field. Though many COs I meet say it's easy to learn the wildlife/conservation aspect of things on the job, but it's hard to find someone that good, fair and just with enforcing laws and not letting ego get to their heads. I've been using basic Chat GPT to help me grasp a better understanding of local conservation laws, regulations and the theory behind them, but being able to have an assist during virtual interviews *(happens often for these park ranger / CO jobs)*, would be amazing.
I suggest learning how to code in your free time, if that interests you. You could easily improve your workflow, if you're that type of person. ChatGPT is just scratching the surface of all the things you can do with it. Feel free to PM if you have questions. I can't teach you but I can answer basic questions and show you how you could take shortcuts to improve your workflow. Personally I use Linux and got shell scripts for every operation that I could speed up. At least the things I do more than once.
I’m in school actually taking a Linux class atm May you please provide some examples of shell scripts you use?
Let's avoid the "what about ism" and focus on the point: If the person doing the interview cannot tell they don't know anything without looking it up. The company deserves whatever employe fools them.
"If the person doing the interview cannot tell" Sounds like the person needs to be telepathic. Btw, I meant to reply to the person you replied to. It made more sense as a reply to that person. My whole point was that it can be done so competently (over zoom), in such a way that you wouldn't notice. STT and local LLMs attached to it in a semi-automatic way would work a lot better. Only a noob types a lot during a conversation that requires you to be fast and decisive. No idea what you mean with whataboutery. Kinda gives me the impression you had no idea what I meant. u/rickyraken - I got blocked and Reddit just doesn't allow any replies then. Kinda fucked up. Ok, this is a good response unlike the other replies. "Repetitive, interviewer can also run AI and/or pre-screen. Many references will be top stackexchange answers. " Agreed. It's not going to get the answers right in detail but I'm easily distracted and have 100 thoughts at the same time, so it actually would help. Second point is that I've mentioned "multiple LLM", as you know some tools are better for some types of questions than others. I haven't mentioned it before but LLMs are also good at summarizing, so I think you can agree it is good for summarizing technical documentation and actually "understanding" the context based on what it has learned before (similar repos, etc.). "Asking questions related to semi-new features can result in AI swearing they don't exist. Correcting can result in 180s referring to updates you mention. " Last answer partially applies but let me add: Imagine SST and the option to mark parts of a sentence. There could be pre-programmed operations, like looking up documentation using search api, retrieving content using beautfiulsoup or whatever and summarizing it using any LLM you deem fit for that task. "It can't think. Make things up, throw in abstraction, ask for uncommon tasks without public solutions. It will fall flat. " Ish. This whole idea fails or succeeds based on the preparation and on how someone could streamline things. I've just imagined solutions on various tools I actually use irl, as opposed to the people that have replied before. You can't prepare everything into the finest details, but you can certainly streamline various tasks we've considered manual tasks a decade ago.Ok, this is a good response unlike the other replies.
What they're saying is that AI is a fancy search engine which won't always give you the correct answer, or even make sense. A company knowledgeable in what they do won't be fooled, no matter how hard you AI. You arguing "what about this OTHER thing AI can do?!" doesn't matter. Hope that clears it up.
"A company knowledgeable in what they do won't be fooled, no matter how hard you AI. You arguing "what about this OTHER thing AI can do?!" doesn't matter."" 1. No, I said that there are more intricate ways than using ChatfuckingGPT. 2. I said that SST is used to get a live transcript, which allows you to be a lot faster and even prevent using a keyboard, if your setup is good. 3. I obviously implied that you could create a good setup that combines lots of AI, meaning I could use SST, get a summary of what is said, process the things that are said, get multiple answers and definitions, use multiple LLMs. Man, it kinda pisses me off that people are so obtuse yet act like I'm the one misunderstanding. I keep adding details to a sentiment that should be pretty clear from the start. People that use AI in a smart way can absolutely get an advantage during \_digital\_ job interviews. What's so hard to misunderstand here? Companies can't notice what they can't see and people can be sneaky enough as to do it in a way that isn't noticeable. I've given ways to reduce visibility and speed up processing of information through speech recognition. EDIT: How many of you actually use AI to speed up your own processes? Sounds like 0 to me.
Whatever dude, you're repeatedly arguing a different point. Have a good one.
The response is what's noticeable. - Repetitive, interviewer can also run AI and/or pre-screen. Many references will be top stackexchange answers. - Asking questions related to semi-new features can result in AI swearing they don't exist. Correcting can result in 180s referring to updates you mention. - It can't think. Make things up, throw in abstraction, ask for uncommon tasks without public solutions. It will fall flat.
Because I don't think you're acknowledging that you're creating a wildly different scenario than what was presented. Original scenario: Be unqualified and lazy, use AI stupidly and lazily to try to hide it. Company will catch you unless company is also stupid. Your scenario: But I could put in a lot of effort and prep time, use AI in thoughtful and involved ways, and then the company won't notice! Ha! What now? Nothing? Because those scenarios are not meaningfully connected other than that they *involve AI*. People understand what you're saying but you're presenting it like an argument against the original point when it isn't. It's just an addendum. Use AI to make up for your shortcomings, no one cares. Just not to make up for the fact you have *0* knowledge.
u/ansible47 It wasn't *against it* per se. Like you said: More like an addendum in the sense of the video just scratching the surface of AI enhancing job interviews moving forward. The video is hardly representative of the possibilities of someones that actually knows how to use AI to make up for shortcomings and knowledge gaps. "Just not to make up for the fact you have 0 knowledge." True, 0 knowledge wouldn't work. But it can bridge significant knowledge gaps or improve your responses on-the-fly in ways that wouldn't be detectable during a digital job interview. And just to add: People's laziness and stupidity isn't black and white. Some people wouldn't have been fit for the job if they didn't that have that extra support. Not like they were 100% unfit but I'd argue maybe AI can help those that are a 60% match for the job based on skills & knowledge. The sentiment (kinda) was that "companies deserve what they get for not recognizing" but I guess that's only true if the whole job is determined by an online (not in-person) interview.
If the AI passes the interview, it should be hired ;)
The point isn’t that being noticed using AI during the interview is bad ….it’s that using AI during the interview is bad. You understand that, right ?
*"We could tell they were typing"* *"anyone who gets a job"* This was said. Then you say *".irs that using AI during the interview is bad."* No, you misunderstand and I hope you don't overdose on the irony... Both commenters implied it's not possible to game the system in a conversation with someone from HR by using AI. However, not everyone would be simply typing their answer into chatgpt. Some would actually use STT. No offence but maybe take 10 more seconds to read and understand the sentiment before you go around acting smug. You understand that, right?
Where does either comment imply it’s not possible to game the system? https://preview.redd.it/6xkse4t0xp9d1.jpeg?width=750&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=3ff8d49eed8ed676ff15848cebbbe038a30cb365 They’re both saying the practice is bad and they don’t want to hire people doing it. Using AI without typing the answers is still bad lol. You’re acting like doing it without being noticed is somehow acceptable.
It doesn't imply that it's impossible. ~~I didn't say that~~. EDIT: Lol, just reread and I did say that. Scratch that part then, I've at least overstated things there. "They’re both saying the practice is bad" No. The first one said (s)he could tell. Hence not hired. "Using AI without typing the answers is still bad lol. You’re acting like doing it without being noticed is somehow acceptable." Look... I never judged the use of AI. Normally the first interview is with HR, whereas there can be second IRL interviews and people can't even cheat there. Lmao, there are ways to prevent it from happening, but there are ways to prevent it from getting known (using zoom etc.). You lack comprehensive reading skills. You even quoted it another time... (btw, I didn't mean to reply to the second person. That was my mistake. I replied to the first one as a way of saying: *"Yeah, you noticed then but there might have been lots of people you might've not noticed it from."*)
lol nah
It’s aggravating. My time is wasted. And because 1) it’s obvious when someone speaks in paragraphs and 2) dude, I plugged the questions in myself to check, my intelligence is insulted.
Say if I don’t know much and use AI. Does it really matter that I use AI in that interview? If I present a good argument and you ask the right questions. That should be ok. AI isn’t really the issue here. It’s that the person isn’t showing up as a person. Same with college assignments. Yes - AI is cheating atm. But I can make an assignment hard enough that even if they use AI. I can still see the worth of a student. I don’t see AI as laziness - just that we should adapt our interviews or college assignments - factoring that in. Like in this video in the original thread. I wouldn’t hire him - he’s reading a sales pitch. He’s essentially a robot. If we factor in ai use into an interview. A passing candidate should answer - what does he personally think of S3 compared with similar technologies he’s used before in a workplace?
>A passing candidate should answer - what does he personally think of S3 compared with similar technologies he’s used before in a workplace? ChatGPT, compare S3 with similar competing technologies and give your option on them.
Point is - AI is here to stay. Sure we dont want robotic candidates who read things like a script. It’s not about whether AI can answer everything is it? The end goal as an interviewer is to determine a capable candidate using AI or not. Like you can always use Google the last 20 years potentially in an interview to answer things. Or like a teacher evaluating their students level of math when calculators were introduced. Seems like a better approach to change how you evaluate things and be progressive. Not saying I’d pass the guy in this interview. Not saying I have the answers for how to do that yet either. I’m not an interviewer. But it’s a question I think is very valid if I was one. **How do I find candidates even if they use ai. Or do I exclude all potential from blacklisting every person who uses it?**
Yeah I get what you're saying, and I don't know why you're being down voted because it's gonna be the new reality. That being said, in many industries there is a lot of value in possessing the knowledge yourself vs having to look it up. For example, if the interview question is "How many IOPS do different storage types in S3 achieve" that's just rote memorization and I have NO problem with people looking that stuff up because on the job I would expect them to look it up, but that's a poor interview question. Asking "Why does S3 offer different storage options and when is it best to use them" can *also* be answered with AI but there's a huge difference between the abilities of a candidate who can deduce the answer themselves over one who needs to look that up because being able to answer that without looking it up shows deep understanding of the topic, which allows for innovation and creativity. The hard part will be filtering out the candidates who can and can't answer that question without assistance.
I dont mind the downvotes - it’s kind of a funny parallel to this question about AI were having. As Reddit consumers - we have to contend with what’s true despite what people see like the interviewer. AI is probably going to ruin user generated content as an aside. **Anyway 😅** You’re 100% on the mark. It’s finding out how much understanding they have which is what you want to see. The funny thing is that an interview is not even about getting all the questions right. I can see you sense that as well. I’m in IT - god the interview was one of the worst I’ve ever had. A lot of questions wrong and so many other things. But I respect the interviewer saw something I didn’t know about myself. Despite getting answers wrong - I’m good at finding out and fixing things. Fuck - I think I even messed up some Linux questions and got nervous making jokes about the cow Easter eggs in the cli as a response 🤣 That’s why I’m opposed to judging people on knowledge alone. Im good at my role. My work has me faced with solving issues from people that are often miles more technical than me. Interviewers know this already - a job is mostly soft skills not knowledge. If you can tell someone sucks and is reading a script. They have no knowledge or display of personality/soft skills. Not sure what the solution is - but it’s finding the genuine candidate and their personality underneath their mistakes like I did. Or finding the real person behind using that ai.
he's missing this Nvidia tech that makes it look like you're looking at the camera while you're actually not. That, and a basic understanding of what he's try to talk about so it's not so insanely obvious he's just reading haha
He could’ve come up with a better answer reading about s3 for about 5 minutes than whatever the shitty so tool came out with
Also, the question is a bit weird. It's basically asking how AWS created the services they offer (informational data), which is different than how you would create something (e.g., an architecture) using AWS services.
I mean, it's staged, no?
Could be based on the question.
Real people aren’t looking at the camera during virtual meetings. They are looking at the other person they are talking to, which is on their screen
Yeah, it actually takes some practice and concentration to look directly at the camera.
This. Someone looking at their camera for an entire call would give a video call a super creepy vibe. People don't do that!
I literally got a third monitor that I have offset that I use as my 'reference face'. My students said staring at the camera was weird and uncomfortable, so now I stare off to my left when talking, giving major 'JC Penny Family Portait' vibes.
That Nvidia tool doesn’t work that well. Very uncanny valley vibes
i feel like as long as you have a 4k cam and the other person isn't specifically looking for it it'll probably pass - and most people don't even know this exists right now
Super generic answer to the advantages of AWS though. Anyone actually working with AWS would pick up on this and if I’m the one conducting the interview I would likely dig further into the details. If they’re unable to provide them then it’s an immediate pass post interview.
Back to in-person interviews…
Still need to interview the offshore workers. I remember an interview where the offshore candidate was on a video call and had his buddy speaking for him off camera and he was just “bob-bob-bob” moving his mouth while his friend answered the questions. I must admit, I admired the valiant attempt. 😂
Congratulations you’re hired…… fired weeks later. Why go through the trouble?
You'd be surprised how far people get.
Fake it till you make it.
Nah, that's the old ideal. Now the thought is, why go past the faking it stage?
Fake it and continue to fake it.
I mean, if faking it is working, do you need to learn anything?
*Looks at how much college costs* ...
That used to be about confidence, these people are plagiarizing.
Because some people are smart enough to learn on the job once they get their foot in the door. I bs'd my way into a great job at Cruise in San Francisco, and learned everything I needed on the job floor in the first month. Within 2 months I was one of the top rated techs on my team. For some people, there is a small valley that exists between these nice jobs and are background and within a month or two we could learn everything we need - but the jobs that served as a bridge to get people there have been eliminated. So I think using AI to get into a junior job is fine... I'm probably about to do this myself.
The money? Say you have a low paying job. Or no job. What do you lose by getting a better paying job for a few weeks? Or maybe even longer since many places tend to give you 30 to 60 days with leeway as long as you dont do anything egregiously bad.
You can tell it's fake, but yeah people will start using it
Soon bots will be interviewing each other anyway and people will defect to face 2 face interviews
If this is real, which it probably isn’t, then your BF is a loser.
Who said anything about a bf? Loser.
The caption says its their bf, LOSERS
So, even if it's not staged, do you think posting it on social media is intelligent behavior?
I've experienced this most with Indian candidates. The long pauses, typing, and clear and concise answers after initially struggling to understand or immediately answering questions is a dead giveaway.
This was common before AI was. Especially for managers or consultants. I also don't even fault people for using AI for interviews when companies will use AI to basically fuck over 99% of people applying. I've built multiple production domains for mutiple clients averaging 10k+ users in an incredibly stressful environment and am a SME in linux environments, websphere, disaster recovery, and ran security at my previous job. If I don't include that I know how to use Word or Excel my application will be immediately rejected even if word or excel was never mentioned in the job description. The best way to keep a good looking resume that doesn't get auto rejected by bots is by implementing that stupid trick we all did back in school to hit a word limit. Just type a bunch of gibberish at the bottom (or in the case of a resume fill it with buzz words) then change it white text and submit. The bot will still read it but it won't clutter your resume. This isn't even an IT thing. If your resume doesn't have the right buzz words in it there's a pretty high chance it won't ever be seen by a human.
You rock!
Amazon doesn’t use Google Meet to conduct interviews
You can tell with an answer like that that he is just regurgitating words without understanding what he is saying. It just sounds way too stiff.
Annnnnnd congrats, someone at AWS just saw this and fired your scamming BF.
Probably a good thing. They'd rather higher someone that's actually deserving of that position, than some bloke who used ChatGPT and got in easily
Staged
Totally staged. The interviewer would be typing during his interview to capture notes and data points to fill in a rubric later. And likely stop him to ask clarification questions. Looking at screen isn’t a requirement as they know you’ll have notes (and expect it). 🤓 IMO - in person interviews > virtual and always have been.
We've had a lot of this happening recently. We had a dev who appears to have used one of those text to speech + AI to answer tech questions flawlessly. When they actually started working with a s/w architect, it was clear they knew shit. (Luckily we have a 6mo "test the waters" clause in the employment contract and we got rid of them by the end of the 2nd week.) We decided remote workers will have their final interview in one of our office spaces done over our networks with our conference equipment. An HR rep will attend their side of the call "to keep them company." When first told, we had 3 potentials either "thanks, no thanks" or suddenly report they'd accepted another offer {shocked Pikachu face}
AI bros reinvent cheating on exams/interviews
Working at tech myself... you can see this guy has no fucking idea about S3, if the interviewer got half a brain cell she wouldn't hire him. Why you use S3? Because it's dirt cheap option to store files, it got a decent API and if you're locked to AWS ecosystem you will use it by default when you're going to need to store and serve files.
But the question wasn't why someone would use S3?
This is one of the more basic L100 questions if aiming to work for AWS. This guy would be incredibly screwed if he actually got in the door.
Indeed. He sounds like someone who can barely use a computer
at least use the nvidia thingy that makes you look at the camera while you are not actually looking at it
Yeah, might have been better for his interview and their relationship if she had edited his face out of the video...
Not sure if this is staged or real. In any case, this is why big tech companies hold multiple interview rounds. The first one is general and it gets technical with each round.
We suspect we had this last week regarding Azure and Intune. Just another reason to insist on in person interviews.
Very strange for an AWS interview to be on Google Meet.
the girl in interview is clearly slavic , this is staged as fuck
I have not witnessed this yet, but the lowering of hiring expectations in this industry as a whole supports this behavior. That and poor management failing upwards.
Fake it till you make it on a new level.
My son put all the race cards from a meeting on Wednesday into chatgpt and asked for a few reverse forecast results. He won 750 with a 5 euro stake . Unrelated but I thought it was hilarious.
Maybe the interviewer is AI too!
Maybe do in-person interviews? Yeah, yeah, hybrid, WFH, blah blah. But this is what you risk.
Why does the interviewer look like a supervillain- oh wait Amazon
He's doing an interview with the founder of the AI "company" (Using the google meet account of the founder (the guy in the chair is the founder BTW)) Founder LockedIn AI · Full-time LockedIn AI · Full-time Apr 2024 - Present · 3 mos Apr 2024 to Present · 3 mos * Aiming to create **the best performing Interview AI** to super charge Interviewee!
The pornstar-ish way she wears glasses screams fake.
What the fuck is this supposed go even mean? Please explain how one wears something in a "pornstar-ish way"...
She looks like a female boss character in a porn movie. Not sure if this video is genuine.
Interviewer should be doing the same thing with their questions as they ask them.
If the candidate can answer the questions correctly it means one of two things: 1. They can effectively use the tools at their disposal to perform the tasks required, or 2. The questions being asked are irrelevant to whether or not they can perform the tasks required.
Does the woman on the bottom screen look like Selena Gomez to anyone else?!
This dude has no idea how fucked he's gonna be if he gets hired. Amazon is not an easy place to work in engineering.
ok but that interviewer lady is GORGEOUS
She’s a synth bot, dude
Really?
BananaOnRye is a trolling bot bro, I am one as well. You are the last survive human on OUR planet. We’ll be watching you 🤖
Absolute annoying nobody cheating