> Uhm, we have an active interview pipeline where we give a take-home technical assessment. After we got a few submissions, and manually evaluated them, I fed our analyses in and our grading rubric and had it generate assessments for incoming candidates following the rubric. After checking a few pretty carefully it became clear that it was good enough to trust - the take home wasn't groundbreaking and the problem space was understood enough to be able to identify obvious issues if there were any.
If you're going to not invest any of your time, and just have an AI evaluate candidate homework, can you provide a single ethical reason for why candidates shouldn't just have AI do that homework for them?
We encourage candidates to use AI on the homework and to be comfortable sharing the prompts they used and the workflow they engaged the AI with to get to their end result. We've experienced a wide range of proficiencies in using AI to solve the technicals. Anything from lazy one shots with 1k loc changed and 0 awareness of trade-offs to very surgical, 200 loc changed where the candidates broke down the problem and guided the AI step by step.
Whether to lean into or push back against using AI in the technical was a major point of discussion for us when building the hiring pipeline. Ultimately we decided it would be fighting against the current to try to prevent candidates from using AI and so we decided to assume they would and build questions in to evaluate their efficacy.
I'm also not sure it's fair to say we invest no time just because we use AI. We hop on a call with each candidate after they submit the technical and ask questions about their process, how they decided scope, and try to figure out how much awareness they have of what they coded.
If you're going to not invest any of your time, and just have an AI evaluate candidate homework, can you provide a single ethical reason for why candidates shouldn't just have AI do that homework for them?