:) this took a bit of thought to get the right words..
I am ALL for this, for a number of reasons:
- will help people 'find the words'
- it's pretty easy to spot someone who doesn't actually know what they are talking about, even if what they are saying is correct and valid
- actual technical capability is only a small part of the job.
:D so, 'find the words', interviews can be stressful as all hell for both sides, as someone who assumes the power of the interviewer that's a heavy stick to wield over someone who is trying to explain why they very much want to be paid by you. Communication is _hard_, even if you gel with someone, actually explaining something to them in a way that both people completely grok can be really hard.
If someone joined and front and centre said 'I'm using AI to help me with my answers because I find interviews hard' I'd sit up straight and be all 'cool! lets do this!'
'Are you sure about that? what did it feel like?', ok so this one is VERY subjective but it's a pretty solid baseline to go on.
Interviews should be a verification that they actually are interested in working with you and that you are interested in working with them.
So to be able to make that judgement you and they have to get to a point where the interview can be concluded, and whilst there's a fair chunk of other stuff to go through, technical understanding is important.
To be clear, lack of it is fine, that's why different levels exist, you want to be a software engineer but you have no experience or skill? Well ok but you will be starting at the bottom.
Now to that, there will sometimes be people who want to 'show a higher level of capability than they have current attained' and that's what my job is, to try and see that when it happens.
It's pretty easy to do to be fair, humans experience deeply, computers do not. So if I want to talk about Entity Framework Linq helpers then I'll be looking for the spark of excitement when it suddenly pinged to them that this is WAY easier! And pretty! It makes the queries dance!
..and yes, that's my experience, but it doesn't take much to guide people on sharing their excitement in this stuff, and frankly if you get to the end of the interview and _haven't_ found that excitement or deep interest then skill level aside, you've probably already got your answer.
Finally is around how relevant is a specific level of technical capability?
As I said, that's what we have graded levels for (junior, senior etc), and besides this whole bag (for me at least) is much more about how you solve problems than what you specifically know.
I've seen people wildly switch careers into software and sure, there's a lot of hand-holding and stuff early on cos it's a proper throw into the deep end, but it's the mind, not the current capability.
I am ALL for this, for a number of reasons: - will help people 'find the words' - it's pretty easy to spot someone who doesn't actually know what they are talking about, even if what they are saying is correct and valid - actual technical capability is only a small part of the job.
:D so, 'find the words', interviews can be stressful as all hell for both sides, as someone who assumes the power of the interviewer that's a heavy stick to wield over someone who is trying to explain why they very much want to be paid by you. Communication is _hard_, even if you gel with someone, actually explaining something to them in a way that both people completely grok can be really hard. If someone joined and front and centre said 'I'm using AI to help me with my answers because I find interviews hard' I'd sit up straight and be all 'cool! lets do this!'
'Are you sure about that? what did it feel like?', ok so this one is VERY subjective but it's a pretty solid baseline to go on. Interviews should be a verification that they actually are interested in working with you and that you are interested in working with them. So to be able to make that judgement you and they have to get to a point where the interview can be concluded, and whilst there's a fair chunk of other stuff to go through, technical understanding is important. To be clear, lack of it is fine, that's why different levels exist, you want to be a software engineer but you have no experience or skill? Well ok but you will be starting at the bottom. Now to that, there will sometimes be people who want to 'show a higher level of capability than they have current attained' and that's what my job is, to try and see that when it happens. It's pretty easy to do to be fair, humans experience deeply, computers do not. So if I want to talk about Entity Framework Linq helpers then I'll be looking for the spark of excitement when it suddenly pinged to them that this is WAY easier! And pretty! It makes the queries dance! ..and yes, that's my experience, but it doesn't take much to guide people on sharing their excitement in this stuff, and frankly if you get to the end of the interview and _haven't_ found that excitement or deep interest then skill level aside, you've probably already got your answer.
Finally is around how relevant is a specific level of technical capability? As I said, that's what we have graded levels for (junior, senior etc), and besides this whole bag (for me at least) is much more about how you solve problems than what you specifically know. I've seen people wildly switch careers into software and sure, there's a lot of hand-holding and stuff early on cos it's a proper throw into the deep end, but it's the mind, not the current capability.