[jkukul]

A leet-code test would be much more standardized if candidates could solve it at home. Just send me a link to the quiz and let me solve it within a specified time frame.

I've done tests like this for some companies. It felt a lot fairer and more closely resembling the actual work environment than live leet-code interviews, with biased interviewer(s) and a stress factor that's not a part of the actual job.

[skeeter2020]

As a hiring manager I HATE leet-code tests, and they do nothing to differentiate candidates, but a take home in the era where people run chatGPT beside the interview window, or have someone else do the interview for them? Not a chance. You are 100% correct that it is way more representative, but the prevalence of cheating is ridiculous.

[jkukul]

I totally understand you, but want to offer a different perspective.

They will also be able to use ChatGPT on the job. And StackOverflow. And Google. If they know how to use tools available to solve a problem, that will benefit them on the job.

If you're testing them for what ChatGPT can already solve, then are the skills being tested worth anything, in this day and age?

Take-home LeetCode, even with cheating will still filter out a good chunk of candidates. Those who are not motivated enough or those who don't even know how to use the available help. You'll still be able to rank those who solved the task. You'll still see the produced code and be able to judge it.

Like other commenter points out, you can always follow up the take-home LeetCode. Usually, it becomes apparent really quickly if a candidate solved it on their own.

[CoastalCoder]

This does seem like a vexing problem, especially when interviews are conducted remotely.

I wonder if either of the following could be cost-effective:

(a) Fly the candidate to a company office, where their compute usage could be casually monitored by an employee.

(b) Use high-quality proctoring services that are nearby to the candidate. E.g., give them 1-2 days in a coworking space, and hire a proctor to verify that thy're not egregiously using tools like ChatGPT.

Or alternatively, would it suffice to just have a long conversation with the candidate about their solution? E.g. what design trade-offs they considered, or how might they adapt their solution to certain changes in the requirements.

[fragmede]

Before Covid, on-sites were, well, on site, and flying the candidate in for a day was just accepted practice.

[oytis]

Take home is fine if you discuss it later in the interview. But also there should be some pre-screening to keep the number of interviewees reasonable.

[fragmede]

The better/new interview question, thus, is "here is code that chatGPT generated for $PROBLEM", what's wrong with it.