stackdestroyer

I haven't said anything about use of AI during the interview. However, the difference between using an AI tool like Claude or Cursor to help you reason about and develop a solution to a problem, and using something like ParakeetAI to listen to your call and provide you a script to speak is huge - it completely removes the thinking from the interaction. You can tell by how the candidate doesn't pause to contemplate the question, and from the overly polished answers delivered.

Since I'm the hiring manager, I'm looking for someone who is being genuine in the interview, and the AI cheaterware is a bridge too far, especially since it wasn't intended to be deeply technical - why cheat on a behavioral screen? You AI'd your way into the reject pile and made fool of yourself in the process.

I only end up with absurd questions if I am nearly positive the candidate is using one of these tools. I was proven right too - I asked a candidate if he'd ever chopped down a tree with an axe. He said no immediately, and then proceeded to give me a solid woodsmans explanation for how to do just that. I stand by what I did.

Just to clarify - i should have said this originally - it's not about the use of Cursor or Claude at all. I mean that they were using something that was listening to the conversation, and then automatically spitting out something for the candidate to say. I'm all for the tools and yes, it's an expectation that you will be not just familiar with, but a power user of tools like Cursor and Claude. I object only to what seems like "cheatware" for the whole process of the interview.

Candidates are also not themselves in these scenarios - IRL interviews show that immediately.

To be clear, I have started asking absurd questions, and seeing what the reaction is. Those using AI assistants never balk at these.

DNS seems broken

"everyone has a plan until they get punched in the mouth" -mike tyson

If you're not doing some work to understand how your software works in real life, you're just a theoretician, and you're going to get punched in the (virtual) mouth when your naive assumptions fail to materialize in the random world of production.

Do the ops work, just like Ops/SRE cleans up the shit-stew you call your software when it breaks in prod. Or stop writing bugs. You pick.

1. Being informed about what the top level company goals are as well as department context and goals. If you can't draw a straight-ish line between what you're working on and those goals, it's probably not aligned. Make sure you have a defined and prioritized backlog of projects so that when you have the time/resources, you can easily pluck the next one off of the stack.

2. Repeating myself over and over and over (typically ~7 times) to get a message out to the team/org. Even smart people act dumb sometimes, and don't listen/read when they should. It feels like babysitting, sometimes.

3. Books, blogs, industry friends, and some mentors. I have found it difficult to make external mentor friends, but still working on it.

4. It's never about the tools. Jira sucks, slack sucks, and so do most tools. Make sure you keep your workflow simple and make it transparent, however you do it, so that not only can YOU see what's going on, you can confidently share it with others (see? THIS is why your feature isnt being worked on right now, etc.)

How many hours a week do you spend working?

Not fizzling yet...more than 1 year in...

/me NEEDS MORE FIZZLE

Thanks for the reply! How do you communicate your state across the various groups? What routines/rituals do you use religiously?

I have tried this with limited success. Sometimes people respect the time you have blocked, most times not. So I end up feeling double booked and frustrated that my attempts to get time to do "real work" are thwarted.