undefined | Better HN

0 pointsmudrockbestgirl3y ago0 comments

Did you read the rest of my comment? If the test was good and the machine passes, that means you could just hire the machine instead and wouldn't need to complain about it. You'd be happy because that's much cheaper than hiring a human.

But presumably the op thinks the machine is not good enough to replace a developer. But it passed the interview... so doesn't that mean the interview question was bad?

0 comments

2 comments · 1 top-level

jstx13y ago· 1 in thread

> that means you could just hire the machine instead and wouldn't need to complain about it.

No, it doesn't. You're assuming that the test and the job are the same thing which they don't have to be. My point is that you can have tests that are different from the job itself which are still useful tests. Then you don't care whether a large language model can pass the test too.

mudrockbestgirlOP3y ago

You're right, I'm assuming that the interview should resemble the knowledge needed in the actual job as much as possible. Maybe there are exceptions but I think that's a pretty fair assumption. I think that's the reason why so many people hate whiteboarding interviews. They are not close to the job.

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse