Paul-Craft

I have no idea, but this type of scenario is just one of many, many reasons giving an LLM free access to a browser on the open internet sounds like a terrible idea.

Which "LangChain situation" are you talking about? Anything specific, or just everything that's happened in the past year or so?

Can you add in the missing words that make this comment make sense, please?

Excuse me? Amazon lost more money in one day than most companies have in revenue, from dropped orders. I would say that matters. Believe it or not, the systems we work on do things that matter in the real world.

I've tried that. They don't have anything for me.

Unfortunately, I have a visual-spatial processing disability. You don't want me near anything mechanical, and I can't do visualization-based tasks because I literally can't visualize. That eliminates most engineering jobs.

There's also the matter of going back to school, and the associated debt I'd have to take. I'd never be able to pay the loans off if I did that.

What would that look like? In my experience, real production codebases tend to have lots of bugs. Most of them never get prioritized, because features matter more than fixing obscure bugs.

Are you willing to wake up at 3 AM when that "valuable" AI-written code pages on-call?

I agree there is some value in AI tools, but implementation details do matter. People shouldn't be pushing unread code to prod. That's how you end up with security holes and other bugs. That's how you end up dropping millions of orders on Amazon.com.

I actually considered that, myself. The thing is, California is where the jobs are for me. If I move out of California, I may never be able to come back. That could cost me a lot.

I don't think anyone mentioned comparing AI error rates to a base rate of zero. What has been mentioned is significant numbers of clinically significant omissions, and outright hallucinations. Blatant fabrications should never happen with a human scribe, and one would expect clinically significant omissions to be rarer, because a human has clinical judgement that an AI can't have.

I thought along those lines as well. The only thing I could come up with that would be semi-viable was medical school, and I"m not sure I'd survive residency. I definitely would never be able to pay back the debt, if I had to take any.

Huh, weird that you can't reply.

I'm tailoring my resume to individual postings a good portion of the time. My "default" resume is by ChatGPT; it's essentially my human-written resume, jazzed up a bit for ATS-friendliness. There are no hallucinations in it, and I feel it accurately represents my experience.

I'm fine with "not big tech," along with a "not big tech" salary. In fact, I prefer "not big tech." My cost of living is not absurd for the Bay Area. I'd even be willing to take a little less than what I made before. After all, less than before is still better than 0. I'm using AI to tailor my resume to every posting, and still not getting calls.

Bay Area, 9 YoE primarily backend, US citizen. I'm familiar with AI coding tools. I've done real work on real systems.

I mean, I am. How else would I know nobody wants to interview me? :)

I'm asking myself the same question for a different reason: nobody will even interview me. I've been out of work for a while. Savings are running out. I apparently don't even know how to look for a job anymore.

I can certainly imagine such a world. I don't use Brave because I don't want to support Brendan Eich.

The ghost of Milton Friedman speaks!

I don't know what world you live in where an arbitrary and illegal price increase on essentially everything is "just."

No shit. I've made that mistake before, not gonna try it again.

I'm speaking to what I know. Sue me.

Like I said, that's not the same. It's not comparable in terms of stakes, or expected outputs. You're not addressing the issue.

Mental health conditions can be disabilities. Again: are you saying you discriminate against people with disabilities?

I'm gonna stop you right here, because I never said any such thing:

> We don't. The simple solution is to stop maintaining the illusion that 100% perfect hire is possible.

Yes, it is artificial. Everything about a live coding interview is artificial. Code doesn't get written in 1 hour blocks while someone's watching over one's shoulder, all the while asking questions to interrupt one's thought process, in any company I've ever worked for.

> Mentally strong and healthy people who do well when challenged are good hires.

So, you discriminate against disabled people?

I think that's a good approach. I can write FizzBuzz in 4 different programming styles, in at least 3 different programming languages, and I'd be happy to talk about all 12 permutations of them.

> I sit down with juniors and sketch out designs or code for them while talking through the thought process at least once a week, and even when solo coding, I expect everyone produces work that explains itself. For particularly complex/nuanced changes, people do hop on a call to talk through it.

That's not equivalent to what I said, nor is it live coding.

Again, those deadlines are artificially short compared to real world scenarios, and completely arbitrary. They are so short, in fact, that they render the interview an invalid test of real working ability. A work sample has been proven time and again to be the most valid measure of whether a candidate can actually perform the job, but the conditions under which a live coded "work sample" is performed in an interview render it invalid.

I don't know about you, but I've never had to live code a PR and explain to my reviewer what I was thinking while writing the code. By "deadlines" I'm referring to the length of the interview. Take home problems theoretically solve both these issues, but they need to be properly scoped and specified to be valid assessments.

Interviews are not valid tests of those things due to the stress involved.

If you don't understand how not having a job in a place like the US is life or death, you're not the right interviewer.