Most don’t. I know the shape of the answer that ai provides. I added the marker to be able to tell with more confidence.
Sometimes I see the marker and the answer is much different and more correct. In those rare cases I bring up the point of trust in the interview if the candidate seems promising.
Easier to communicate both internal and externally why someone was rejected. Lots of acts are commonly understood as wrong, but we still write the laws to make the definitions/rules easy to discuss and reference.
Sure, someone may get away with it, but then they proved they can use the system effectively and without causing issues, so... eh..
That's my point. He told candidates not to use AI. What's the point of saying that if candidates can use AI without getting caught?
Most don’t. I know the shape of the answer that ai provides. I added the marker to be able to tell with more confidence.
Sometimes I see the marker and the answer is much different and more correct. In those rare cases I bring up the point of trust in the interview if the candidate seems promising.
>I know the shape of the answer that ai provides.
Curios how you can tell so confidently considering LLMs are constantly changing and candidates can always refactor code to make it seem more human.
1 reply →
Easier to communicate both internal and externally why someone was rejected. Lots of acts are commonly understood as wrong, but we still write the laws to make the definitions/rules easy to discuss and reference.
Sure, someone may get away with it, but then they proved they can use the system effectively and without causing issues, so... eh..
[dead]