Comment by FirmwareBurner
2 years ago
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?
2 years ago
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.
If they refactor, I probably can't tell. Sometimes they refactor a little. I once saw someone refactor it a lot but there was still a tell-tale sign - I ended up inviting the candidate for the interview as they put in a bit more effort rather than blindly pasting in the answer ChatGPT gave them.
I can't be 100% but in any given time, ChatGPT seem to produce very similar code for the same prompt. It names the function in one particular way. It adds way too many trivial comments.
There are minor variations in the wording and sometimes variables, but in general if I see certain things it's a strong signal that they used AI.
I added some additional things (see my original comment) and it correlates perfectly with my observations.
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]