[lcnPylGDnU4H9OF]

It's a fair point that I am making this assumption. At any rate, my comment could instead read:

> [If one assumes that the candidate] would have been able to perform the job duties I'm not sure why [they] should care.

This is what I mean; I can see why an interviewer thinks they've been cheated or that a candidate was dishonest but that doesn't mean that the interviewer even has a successful system for determining if a candidate can perform the job duties. A candidate who cheated -- from the perspective of the interviewer, I guess -- but still manages to adequately perform in their role very plainly did not cheat from a less biased perspective. What is that interviewer even thinking? How could that person have cheated?

[staunton]

> determining if a candidate can perform the job duties. A candidate who cheated -- from the perspective of the interviewer, I guess -- but still manages to adequately perform in their role very plainly did not cheat

That's not what anyone means when they say "cheating". Cheating means to violate the conditions and assumptions of an examination or contest.

For example, if a chess grandmaster uses an AI implant to win a game and gets caught, it doesn't make it OK if they could consistently win against the same opponent even without the AI.

[lcnPylGDnU4H9OF]

Okay, that does make the position more understandable but I still don’t quite get it. Perhaps more accurately, I see these assumptions which others don’t necessarily share. The people claiming cheater have different opinions from the supposed cheaters.

I recall a Starcraft 2 match[0] involving a person with an apparently psychosomatic wrist injury that was only painful while they’re playing on stage. Their opponent was seeming to draw out a game they were losing in an attempt to trigger the pain; it was a viable strategy given the “best of” series they were playing. That’s certainly not going to be accounted for in the rules and one might believe that it’s an underhanded way to win. But both players are in the top echelons of game knowledge, experience, and skill; that’s the only reason either player made it to this particular match-up. The player with the wrist injury ultimately had it act up and lost the series.

Did the winner deserve to win? Should the other player be considered the better player? The assumptions of the game rules and what’s “fair” might be different per player; who’s right, who’s wrong, and why? What about when prize money is involved; that guy who won by the written rules just doesn’t deserve it because of unspoken rules? These questions don’t seem to have obvious answers, so of course I challenge assumptions.

0: I’m looking for the VOD I watched. Edit: I believe it was here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DS2XIyNDlSA

[dataflow]

You're completely ignoring the fact that honesty (& willingness to follow rules you might otherwise disagree with, etc.) themselves might be traits the employer is looking for in that role. Traits that (by your willingness to break the rules) you're obviously lacking. They just don't happen to be technical skills, but that doesn't mean they don't matter to the employer. What do you think you're doing by cheating? You're deceiving them into hiring someone with traits they explicitly don't want. You don't see a problem with that?

[lcnPylGDnU4H9OF]

> You're completely ignoring

There are nicer ways to express your meaning. I haven’t ignored anything.

These traits are often not offered by the employer. Why do I keep hearing people talk about the underhanded ways that companies try to obfuscate salary budgets if not because they’re dishonest? I certainly see that as dishonesty; where are they coming from to demand such honesty from their candidates?

They get honesty anyway but that doesn’t mean I can convince them of it. If a person wants to assume guilt in someone, that is often what happens. You may not have experienced a person power-tripping over you but that’s been a good portion of my life and it’s hard to miss the patterns in a modern job interview.

To be clear, I’m not advocating for one to be dishonest. The person using ChatGPT to supplement their knowledge is not being dishonest; that’s my claim. The interviewer feels like the candidate “cheated”. Oh well. Too bad the interviewer isn’t above pejoratives. Gotta call it “cheating” so they can dismiss the candidate as dishonest. How dishonest!