←back to thread

Looking for a Job Is Tough

(blog.kaplich.me)
184 points skaplich | 1 comments | | HN request time: 0.211s | source
Show context
thw09j9m ◴[] 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 ◴[] 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 ◴[] 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 ◴[] 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 #
ryandrake ◴[] No.42140896[source]
Asking candidates: "Don't use AI" is like all those other arbitrary handicaps that interviewers used to (and sometimes still do) weirdly insist on:

"Write this code, but don't read the API definition (like a normal developer would do in the course of their work)"

"Whiteboard this CRUD app, but don't verify you did it right using online sources (like a normal developer would do in the course of their work)"

"Type this function out in a text document so that you don't have the benefit of Intellisense (like a normal developer would have in the course of their work)"

"Design this algorithm, but don't pull up the research paper that describes it (like a normal developer would do in the course of their work)"

You're testing a developer under constraints that nobody actually has to actually work under. It's like asking a prospective carpenter to build you a doghouse without using a tape measure.

replies(1): >>42157051 #
1. jacobyoder ◴[] No.42157051[source]
Take this online test in 30 minutes with awkwardly or ambiguously worded abstract problem. You don't get to ask anyone for clarification on anything like any normal developer would do in the course of their work.

I've never been in a situation where I could not ask for clarification on something except in interview situations. I asked an interviewer once "is this how people normally work here? they just get a few sentences and plow ahead, without being able to ask for more details, clarifications, or use cases?". "Well, no, but you have to use your best judgement here".