←back to thread

Looking for a Job Is Tough

(blog.kaplich.me)
184 points skaplich | 2 comments | 14 Nov 24 01:15 UTC | HN request time: 0.001s | source
Show context
thw09j9m ◴[14 Nov 24 03:08 UTC] No.42132752[source]▶
This is the toughest market I've ever seen. I easily made it to on-sites at FAANG a few years ago and now I'm getting resume rejected by no-name startups (and FAANG).

The bar has also been raised significantly. I had an interview recently where I solved the algorithm question very quickly, but didn't refactor/clean up my code perfectly and was rejected.

replies(12): >>42132828 #>>42132878 #>>42132900 #>>42132935 #>>42133185 #>>42133278 #>>42138532 #>>42138559 #>>42139442 #>>42140920 #>>42143310 #>>42145184 #
joshuaturner ◴[14 Nov 24 04:33 UTC] No.42133185[source]▶
I think a lot of this comes down to AI. In a recent hiring round we experienced multiple candidates using AI tooling to assist them in the technical interviews (remote only company). I expect relationship hires to become more common over the next few years as even more open-discussion focused interview rounds like architecture become lower signal.

So with that in mind I'll see you all at ReInvent

replies(1): >>42133235 #
rsanek ◴[14 Nov 24 04:45 UTC] No.42133235[source]▶
If you're giving remote interviews, your loop should assume candidates can use AI. it's like giving a take home math test that assumes people won't use calculators at this point
replies(2): >>42133482 #>>42136958 #
joshuaturner ◴[14 Nov 24 05:57 UTC] No.42133482[source]▶
I disagree. We pretty explicitly ask candidates to not use AI.

While it's fine when doing the job the purpose of the interview is to gauge your ability to understand and solve problems, while AI can help you with that you understanding how to do it yourself signals that you'll be able to solve other more complex wider-spanning problems.

Just like with a calculator - it's important for candidates to know _why_ something works and be able to demonstrate that as much as them knowing the solution.

replies(6): >>42134372 #>>42136181 #>>42136639 #>>42137164 #>>42137819 #>>42140896 #
randomdata ◴[14 Nov 24 13:58 UTC] No.42136181[source]▶
There is an interesting dichotomy in your interview process. You say you want someone who can solve problems, but then go on to say (perhaps unintentionally; communication is hard) that you only want someone who has already rote-memorized how to solve the particular problems you throw at them, not someone who can figure things out as the problems arise.
replies(2): >>42136620 #>>42136918 #
1. squeaky-clean ◴[14 Nov 24 15:12 UTC] No.42136918[source]▶
> you only want someone who has already rote-memorized how to solve the particular problems you throw at them, not someone who can figure things out as the problems arise

This is literally what AI is, and why they don't want it used in the interview.

replies(1): >>42137135 #
2. randomdata ◴[14 Nov 24 15:29 UTC] No.42137135[source]▶
Literally someone (or, at least, some thing) that can figure things out as problems arise? That seems quite generous. Unless you're solving a "problem" that has already been solved a million times before, it won't have a clue. These so-called AIs are predictive text generators, not thinking machines. But there is no need to solve a problem that is already solved in the first place, so...

It is really good at being a "college professor" that you can bounce ideas off of, though. It is not going to give you the solution (it fundamentally can't), but it can serve to help guide you. Stuff like "A similar problem was solved with <insert research paper>, perhaps there is an adaptation there for you to consider?"

We're long past a world where one can solve problems in a vacuum. You haven't been able to do that for thousands, if not millions, of years. All new problems are solved by standing on the shoulders of problems that were solved previously. One needs resources to understand those older problems and their solutions to pave the way to solving the present problems. So... If you can't use the tools we have for that during the interview, all you can lean on is what you were able to memorize beforehand.

But that doesn't end up measuring problem solving ability, just your ability to memorize and your foresight in memorizing the right thing.