|
|
|
|
|
|
by whilenot-dev
389 days ago
|
|
|
> doesn't scale when hiring 10+ engineers monthly This got strong "rise and grind guys thinking about life hack" vibes pretty quickly. Be serious, who's hiring at that rate currently?! I see whiteboard interviews as an answer to disputes over opinionated tooling. It's just a pen, a blank canvas, and natural language to communicate. There's probably just pseudocode, no IDEs and zero runtimes. Bringing "AI teammates" into the mix reintroduces some disputes: Candidates would lack the experience to get around your tool and trigger the right responses. Different LLMs have different "characters". As an engineer you'd want to pick the best tool for the job, and no engineer would like be stuck with your choice. It's usually an effort to figure out and setup such a tool for each distinct project. Besides that, even technical interviews have the social component to rule out any "cultural" differences within the team. I really doubt that good technical leaders could take that much value out of an AI assessment to just skip any in-person step of the interview. |
|
|
You're right about the "10+ monthly" number - that was probably too high for most companies. More realistic is probably 3-5 monthly for growing startups, but your point stands.
On the tooling disputes - this is actually something we're grappling with. You're absolutely right that engineers want to pick their tools, and being forced into unfamiliar AI interfaces could be worse than a whiteboard. We're experimenting with letting candidates choose their preferred AI assistant (Claude, ChatGPT, etc.) rather than forcing our choice.
The cultural/social component point is spot-on. This isn't meant to replace human interaction entirely - more to supplement the technical assessment part. The in-person cultural evaluation is still crucial.
Curious: do you think there's any way to make technical assessment more realistic without introducing new tool friction?