Using LLMs at Oxide

I debated not writing this, as I planned on re-applying again, as oxide is in many ways a dream company for me, and didn't want this to hurt my chances if I could be identified and it was seen as negative or critical (I hope not, I'm just relaying my experience, as honestly as I can!), but I felt like I needed to make this post (my first on HN, a longtime lurkerj). I applied in the last 6 months, and against my better judgement, encouraged by the perceived company culture, the various luminaries on the team, the varied technical and non-technical content on the podcasts, and my general (unfortunate) propensity for honesty, I was more vulnerable than normal in a tech application, and spent many hours writing it. (fwiw, it's not super relevant to what I'll get to, but you can and should assume I am a longtime Rust programmer (since 1.0) with successful open source libraries, even ones used by oxide, but also a very private person, no socials, no blogging, etc., so much to my chagrin, I assumed I would be a shoe-in :)) After almost 3 months, I was disappointed (and surprised if I'm being honest, hubris, indeed!) to receive a very bland, uninformative rejection email for the position, stating they received too many applications for the position (still not filled as of today!) and would not proceed at this time, and welcome to re-apply, etc. Let me state: this is fine, this is not my first rodeo! I have a well paying (taking the job would have been a significant paycut, but that's how much I wanted to work there!), albeit at the moment, unchallenging job at a large tech company. What I found particularly objectionable was that my writing samples (urls to my personal samples) were never accessed.

This is or could be signal for a number of things, but what was particularly disappointing was the heavy emphasis on writing in the application packet and the company culture, as e.g., reiterated by the founder I'm replying to, and yet my writing samples were never even read? I have been in tech for many years, seen all the bullshit in recruiting, hiring, performed interviews many times myself, so it wouldn't be altogether surprising that a first line recruiter throws a resume into a reject pile for <insert reasons>, but then I have so many other questions - why the 3 months delay if tossed quickly, and if it truly was read by the/a founder or heavily scrutinized, as somewhat indicated by the post, why did they not access my writing samples? There are just more questions now. All of this was bothersome, and if I'm being honest, made me question joining the company, but what really made me write this response, is that I am now worried, given the content of the post I'm replying to, whether my application was flagged as LLM generated? I don't think my writing style is particularly LLMish, but in case that's in doubt, believe me or not, my application, and this response does not have a single word from an LLM. This is all, sui generis, me, myself, and I. (This doesn't quite explain why my samples weren't accessed, but if I'm being charitable, perhaps the content of the application packet seemed of dubious provenance?) Irregardless, if it was flagged, I suppose the long and short of this little story is: are you sending applicants rejection letters noting this suspicion, at least as a courtesy? If I was the victim of a false positive, I would at least like to know. This isn't some last ditch attempt (the rejection was many months ago) to get re-eval'd; I have a job, I can reapply in my own time, and even if this was an oversight or mistake (although not accessing the writing samples at all is somewhat of a red flag for me), there is no way they can contact me through this burner account, it's just, like, the principle of it, and the words needed to be said :) Thank you, and PS, even through it all, I (perhaps now guiltily) still love your podcast :D

I mean this nicely: please don't prostrate yourself for these companies. Please have some more respect for yourself.

Hey fellow failed applicant!

I had a very similar experience, except I got the automated email after two months, not three — you sound like a stronger candidate, so maybe that's why I got rejected sooner, which'd be fair enough. Still, spending about a week's worth of evenings between the suggested materials, reflecting, writing, and editing 15 pages for one job application and having zero human interaction feels uniquely degrading.

I disagree with your point about that being fine. I think it's not good enough to replicate the bare minimum of what the rest of the industry does while asking for so much more from candidates.

A standard custom, well researched cover letter takes an order of magnitude less effort. When it's cookie cutter rejected by someone spending a few seconds on the CV, it's at least understandable: the effort they'd spend writing a rejection (or replying back) is higher than the amount of effort they spent evaluating the application.

With Oxide however, Brian made a point that they "definitely read everyone's materials" [1]. Which means reading at the very least five pages per candidate. If that's still the case, having an actual human on the other side of the rejection would add a very small amount of time to the whole process, but the company decided to do the absolute least possible. It's a choice, and I think this choice goes against their own principle of decency:

"We treat others with dignity, be they colleague, customer, community or competitor."

I wish Oxide best of luck. They have lots of very smart, very driven people that I'd love to work with, and I love what they are doing. Hope this feedback helps them get better.

[1]: https://youtu.be/wN8lcIUKZAU?t=1400

P.S. Don't you dare, dear reader, consider the emdash above an LLM smell.

Your materials were absolutely read (and indeed, RFD 576 makes clear that LLMs are not a substitute for reading materials). If you have writing samples that were external links, I can't guarantee that they were clicked through though: in part because the materials themselves constitute a galactic writing sample, we may have not clicked through because we were already at a decision point before reading your external writing. As for more specific feedback, if you can DM me, I'll see if I can give you more specific feedback -- but as we explicitly indicate in RFD 3[0], we are very limited in what we can provide.

As for your application getting flagged as LLM-generated: we in fact don't flag such applications (we just reject them), and it's very unlikely that we felt that yours were LLM-generated. (We really, really give applicants the benefit of the doubt on that.)

All of that said: absolutely no one is a shoe-in at Oxide. If you genuinely thought that (and if your materials reflected that kind of overconfidence), it may have well guided our decision. We are very selective in terms of hiring -- and we are very oversubscribed. Bluntly: it's very hard to get a job at Oxide. I know this seems harsh and/or unjust or unfair, but this is the reality. As we told you in the letter we sent you, we already have people at Oxide who prevailed on subsequent applications, because they found a job that's a better fit for them, or they have vastly improved materials (or both). Finally, you can also take solace in knowing that your post here in no way hurts your future chances at Oxide, and we look forward to reading your materials should you choose to apply in the future.

[0] https://rfd.shared.oxide.computer/rfd/0003#_rejection_of_non...

I understand your disappointment; we are very explicit about why we provide so little feedback.[0] I disagree that it's indecent; to the contrary, we allow anyone to shoot their shot, with the guarantee that they will be thoughtfully considered.

[0] https://rfd.shared.oxide.computer/rfd/0003#_rejection_of_non...

Indeed, I understand your reasoning, you talk about that in the podcast in the RFD. This is why I wasn't talking about the lack of feedback, but the lack of human interaction. While there is nothing constructive to be done about the disappointment of rejection, this part is very much in your power to change, and that's why I think it's constructive feedback and not just venting.

That said, the RFD does say this:

> Candidates may well respond to a rejection by asking for more specific feedback; to the degree that feedback can be constructive, it should be provided.

Even just replying with refusal to provide feedback would still be more humane and decent.

Please DM me and I'll let you know if there's constructive feedback to be provided.