Similar it is unreasonable and bordering on negligence to assume a person has the skill set unique to your situation.
I can see how an applicant who cheats interview with chatbot would later not bother to internalize operation instructions for the job.
My experience with Chat GPT ranges from “it’s really good for rapidly getting a bearing with a certain topic” to “it’s a woeful substitute for independently developing a nuanced understanding of a given topic.” It tends to do an OK with programming and a very poor job with critical theory.
Exactly. It “only” shows you can & willing to at least understand the requirements, internalize them well enough, and comply with them. It shows your capability of understanding & working together with other humans.
Which is key.
In my impression, almost always the knowledge you receive at the uni is not really pertinent to any actual job, and anyone can have PhD level understanding of a subject without having finished high school.
It is the capability of understanding and working in a system that matters.
Similarly with a chatbot. Using it to game interviews in ways described does not mean candidate is stupid, or something like that. It is, though, a negative signal of one’s willingness and intrinsic motivation to do things like internalizing job responsibilities & procedures, or just simply behave in good faith.
Mental capacity to do mundane things is often important when it comes to, say, maintaining a nuclear reactor.
> just a tool
> it’s really good for rapidly getting a bearing with a certain topic
Perhaps. Personally I prefer using Google, so that I at least know who wrote what and why rather than completely outsourcing this to an anonymous team of data engineers at ClosedAI or whatnot, but if it is efficient to get some knowledge then why not?
It’s using it to blatantly cheat and do the key part for you where it becomes questionable.
Normally people who get bad results from it would also get similar results if they asked a domain expert. Similarly different knowledge domains use a different corpus of text for their core axioms/premises, so if you don't know the domain area or those keywords your not going to be able to prime the model to get anything meaningful from it.
Consider e.g. being a pilot, or a surgeon - two other occupations known for their extensive use of operational procedures today. People in those jobs are not being hired for their ability to stick to a checklist, but rather for their ability to understand reasons behind it, and function without it. I.e. the procedures are an important operational aid, not the driver.
Contrast with stereotypical bureaucrats who only follow procedures and get confused if asked something not covered by them.
Now, IMHO, the problem here is that, if you're hiring someone who relies on an LLM to function, you're effectively employing that LLM, with its limitations and patterns of behavior. As an employer, you're entitled to at least being made aware of that, as it's you who bears responsibility and liability for fuckups of your hires.
