[lukan]

That is part of "deliver working things".

A car hold together by duct tape is usually not considered a working car or road save.

Same with code.

"You also need to take into account how to judge if something is "working" or not — that's not necessarily a trivial task."

Indeed, and if the examiner cannot do that, he might be in a wrong position in the first place.

If I am presented with code, I can ask the person what it does. If the person does not have a clue - then this shows quickly.

[jaggederest]

Completely agree. I'm judging the outputs of a process, I really am only interested in the inputs to that process as a matter of curiosity.

If I can't tell the difference, or if the AI helps you write drastically better code, I see it as no more nor no less than, for example, pair programming or using assistive devices.

I also happen to think that most people, right now, are not very good at using AI to get things done, but I also expect those skills to improve with time.

[oneeyedpigeon]

Sure, but the output of your daily programming work isn't just the code you write for the company. It's also your own self-improvement, how you work with others, etc. For the record, I'm not just saying "AI bad"; I've come around to some use of AI being acceptable in an interview, provided it's properly assessed.

[jaggederest]

> Sure, but the output of your daily programming work isn't just the code you write for the company. It's also your own self-improvement, how you work with others, etc

Agreed, but I as the "end user" care not at all whether you're running a local LLM that you fine tune, or storing it all in your eidetic memory, or writing it down on post it notes that are all over your workspace[1]. Anything that works, works. I'm results oriented, and I do care very much about the results, but the methods (within obvious ethical and legal constraints) are up to you.

[1] I've seen all three in action. The post-it notes guy was amazing though. Apparently he had a head injury at one point and had almost no short term memory, so he coated every surface in post-its to remind himself. You'd never know unless you saw them though.

[oneeyedpigeon]

I think we're agreeing on the aim—good results—but disagreeing on what those results consist of. If I'm acting as a 'company', one that wants a beneficial relationship with a productive programmer for the long-term, I would rather have [ program that works 90%, programmer who is 10% better at their job having written it ] as my outputs than a perfect program and a less-good programmer.

[jaggederest]

I take epistemological issue with that, basically, because I don't know how you measure those things. I believe fundamentally that the only way to measure things like that is to look at the outputs, and whether it's the system improving or the person operating that system improving I can't tell.

What is the difference between a "less good programmer" and a "more good programmer" if you can't tell via their work output? Are we doing telepathy or soul gazing here? If they produce good work they could be a team of raccoons in a trench coat as far as I'm aware, unless they start stealing snacks from the corner store.