Ok, then that seems like a pretty reasonable thing to assess?

> I'd rather have a developer on my team that demonstrates high technical competence than one that is GPT-skilled, but doesn't know what questions to ask GPT nor how to judge its responses.

But "what questions does the candidate ask an LLM and how do they judge its responses" is part of the interview, if you don't forbid them from using an LLM!

Now, if they don't want to use these tools, if that's not part of their normal process while working, then that's totally fine too. But if they're comfortable with these tools, if they are part of their normal set of things they use for their work, then you're doing yourself a disservice by designing an interview process that is incapable of accomodating that.

Indeed. At this point, one thing I'd do is stick a candidate in front of some code that (a) didn't work, (b) which came from ChatGPT, and (c) which ChatGPT cannot itself fix, and see if the candidate can fix it.

In that case, let everyone use ChatGPT and similar tools.

Those that know, will likely not use it much. Those that do now know, or are not too confident on themselves, will use it more.