[photonthug]

> does good work using that same LLM then what should the employer or other employees care?

Maybe I'm wrong, but I find it very hard to believe that anyone thinks the "good work" part here is actually a practical possibility today. Boilerplate generation is fine and certainly possible, and I'm not saying the future won't bring more possibilities. But realistically anyone that is leaning on an LLM more than a little bit for real work today is probably going to commit garbage code that someone else has to find and fix. It's good enough to look like legitimate effort/solutions at first glance, but in the best case it has the effect of tying up actual good faith effort in long code reviews, and turns previously productive and creative individual contributors into full-time teachers or proof-readers. Worst case it slips by and crashes production, or the "peers" of juniors-in-disguise get disgusted with all the hand-holding and just let them break stuff. Or the real contributors quit, and now you have more interviews where you're hoping to not let more fakers slide by.

It's not hard to understand that this is all basically just lies (misrepresented expertise) followed by theft. Theft of both time & cash from coworkers and employers.

It's also theft of confidence and goodwill that affects everyone. If we double the number of engineers because expectations of engineer quality is getting pushed way down, the LLM-fakers won't get to keep enjoying the same salary they scammed their way into for very long. And if they actually learn to code better, their improved skills will be drowned out by other fakers! If we as an industry don't want homework, 15 interviews per job, strong insistence on FOSS portfolio, lowered wages, and lowered quality of life at work.. low-effort DDoS both in interviews or in code-reviews should concern everyone.

[verve_rat]

The premise of my comment was: if a person passes an interview using some tool and then uses that same tool to do the job, then didn't the interview work?

You found a person (+ tool combo) that can do the job. If that person (+ tool combo) then proceeds to do the job adequately, is there a problem?

If you present a scenario in which a person passes the interview and then doesn't do the job, the you are answering a question I didn't ask.

To you scenario I would respond: the interview wasn't good enough to do its job, the whole point of the interview process is to find people (+ tool combos, if you allow) that can do the job.