I assume it's because he is seeking to pay rent, food bills, and other expenses through employment.

I mean maybe that is because I live in a still mostly not failed state (Germany), but I can't imagine that these things would be _so bad_ that living in fear of saying the wrong thing would be something worth considering.

Plus, and leaving that aside, I have my doubts that even if you did that, that that company would stay alive for very long. Reality has the habit of eventually ripping this kind of unproductively delusional people (like e.g. a boss that flips if you don't say the right word with regards to the current hype) to shreds eventually.

The US has no social safety net. Healthcare comes from your employer. Everything is centered around having a job. Opinions on AI diverge significantly and someone’s response to this question would be pivotal to me in a hiring role. The market is not great for job seekers. The hiring manager can wait for someone who aligns with their company’s perspective on this.

No, if anything, I would say a very unfortunate trait of existence right now is that reality does NOT tend to punish corporations for being completely idiotic, at least not very fast at all.

Look at musk's companies. They will basically never (on any near timescale...) produce GAAP profitability and yet their IPO is in the trillions. To the point that S&P refusing to suspend their GAAP profitability requirements means the index will basically never see this company in it (which I'm quite pleased about).

The power of already-accumulated capital is simply more powerful than things like "don't be completely pants-on-head stupid about a recent fad" "don't seig-heil in front of the world stage" "there's no point in having people come to an office just to spend all day on zoom" etc etc etc.

The market can remain irrational longer than you can remain solvent, and companies can remain irrational longer than you can go without contributing to your 401k.

How is Germany relevant in this?

Acknowledging that my perception might be skewed because there are still a ton of social safety nets in place.

The same might not be true everywhere.

Last time I was in Germany I saw what appeared to be homeless children

Did they look Ukrainian or Syrian? Germany let in millions of people over the last few years and never built enough housing.

This is totally incorrect. Germany is literally giving out housing for almost free.

No, I'm not stupid or lying.

And yes, it's true. It's just that this housing is not in Berlin.

"Built enough" may sound like the same thing as "giving out housing for almost free", but it isn't. Also, cheap temporary emergency housing for a sudden extra burst of refugees may be inappropriate for permanent occupancy, I believe this is an example, it's certainly containerised/temporary *something*: https://maps.app.goo.gl/HUyQS6Sc1w1Y8GUH6?g_st=ic

That said, an idea has come to mind: UK and Italy have had schemes where a home can be purchased for £1/€1 under the condition the new owner repairs them (the repairs would cost 20-150k). Given some of the really bad stock I've seen in some searches, this may be a good idea for Germany too.

I'm talking about places like Eisenhüttenstadt where you can find a regular apartment for rent for 300€ a month. Market rate.

And yes, you can find even cheaper apartments.

Welfare doesn't entirely eliminate homelessness.

It's… like… not that simple.

Last time I was in Germany I saw elderly people going through garbage bins in the park I sat at. I think you overestimate the safety net in Germany. In my European country the elderly sit at cafes drinking coffee, not going through bins.

Update:

Every street corner has a yellow garbage bin for recycling. That is where your plastic bottles go. Seems like a better system than having elderly going through bins.

Maybe in your country they also don't have a deposit on bottles/cans, making it pointless to go through trash cans?

Plastic bottles go in the yellow recycling bin. Deposit systems are dumb.

They reduce bottle litter by a lot a lot.

Not OP but many people eligible for social benefits don't seek it, for all kinds of reasons (not knowing about it, pride, ideology, peer pressure, ...)

They make it that way on purpose, to save money.

Who is "they" and what specific actions are they taking?

The government that runs the benefits programs. They make you jump through hoops to get any benefits. The first hoop is even knowing that a program exists that you qualify for.

But then they also pay social workers to guide you through the steps of applying and receiving this support. Sometimes the biggest hurdle is to get to know what you don't know.

Keep in mind that not every old person who searches garbage bins is actually poor. Some of them just have dementia. I personally know such people in my home town.

That's why I said "mostly"

It's the 'gift-economy'.

https://pfandring.de/

"My trash, a flash of joy.

For the poor people.

Enabling me, the blissful sheeple,

to consume on with abandon.

Everybody won."

Yes, I'm sure in Germany nobody ever muffs an interview by offending the interviewer.

> Reality has the habit of eventually ripping this kind of unproductively delusional people (like e.g. a boss that flips if you don't say the right word with regards to the current hype) to shreds eventually

"Eventually" yes, but while this phrase may have been about the stock market, it also applies to management: "the market can remain irrational for longer than you can remain solvent".

One concept I only learned a few years ago was the difference between "mistake theory" and "conflict theory". Rational decision-making is the former, political decision-making, including office politics, is the latter. It's important to know which of these kinds of battle you're fighting, or you'll make the wrong type of move.

Also, FWIW, I live in Germany and my unemployment insurance has run out because the job market is just that bad right now; I'm fortunate that I have enough passive income to support myself, but even then if my partner's unemployment insurance ever runs out I can't support both of us.

you assume correct

I typically seek employment for the free electricity, coffee, internet, water, microwave usage and coverage from rain. Some employers even offer showers!

The best benefit about working in a large office is that nobody checks the basement.

> I typically seek employment

Your username does not check out.

Check their bio.

I think honesty is still probably correct - if you're struggling to figure out how to hedge.

I think you'd rather have good odds at some companies and 0% at others, rather than abysmal but non-zero odds at all companies.

And as an added bonus, you might get hired at a company where you're actually a good fit, rather than one you weasled your way into, and get to pay rent, food bills, and other expenses through employment for a long time!

It's pretty easy as an interviewer to spot when a candidate is hedging on a question, and it's the kind of thing that might get discussed in the post-interview debrief.

"Wouldn't give a straight answer on question X" isn't an instant no-hire, but it's not a positive signal.

I just interviewed a guy and all three interviewers asked him functionally the same question. He hedged 3 times and we just wanted an honest answer...

The guy wanted a job, didn't know what answer you wanted for the job, and you guys were being assholes.

If you can accept that then you've learnt something.

It was a question of the form trying to figure out how you deal with "X", and he denied X having ever happened, despite that being a core part of his current role.

He was an internal candidate, we were interviewing him to see if we could trust him with more responsibility (more X specifically), since the new role shouldn't cover up X when it happens. The role involved doing X for himself AND for other people.

Similar to the form of "tell me about your biggest weakness" and you responding with "I have no weakness".

I guess it's a bit different when it's an internal candidate.

I've been on the recieving end of clueless folk trying to make me feel small when I've just been looking for a job, so I might be a bit sensitive about it! Sorry for any offense given. Thankfully I'm beyond that craziness now and can just do what I want for work.

On the other side of this though, the third time the guy should have realized that hedging wasn't working and committed to the truth or a lie.

> you guys were being assholes

Where was this coming from?

instead of telling him out loud, "hey we see you're hedging and applying bullshit interview speak, your answer isn't sufficient", we asking in increasingly obvious but different ways.

It was an internal candidate so it would be awkward to tell him to his face he was floundering.

You can’t interview effectively by limiting yourself to questions where the applicant knows what you want them to say.

And he probably just wants to pay his bills so he can continue to survive.

This doesn't make sense in practice. He hedged so not sure need to look at other factors vs he picked a side and he selected the opposite of what we wanted no-hire or he answered what we wanted small positive signal need to look at other factors.

ironically, I'd understand people not giving a straight answer on this particular topic

"The candidate is mature and doesn't engage in bikeshedding"

I mean, let's be real here. There is such a thing as too honest in an interview.

“I assume it's because he is seeking to pay rent, food bills, and other expenses through employment.”

Fair enough, so if there were one “right” answer, that would be the one to give whether true or not.

But here there is no obvious right answer. If the employer is looking for a particular answer, the poster doesn’t know what it is. In that case, the best thing to say is simply the truth, particularly when the truth that the poster gives here is completely reasonable.

The best thing to say when you don't know the answer probabilistically is to give the most likely correct answer.

Common sense not common

You can’t have common sense when you have no shared values.

Or just say that you do not know the answer - but have the capacity to find it.

> But here there is no obvious right answer.

According to you. That's not the opinion of every prospective employer. Hedging is the right strategy.

It's possible to work for an employer, and not have to compromise your values and or professional integrity.

The attitude suggested by your response suggests you haven't lived that reality yet.

Either way, I'd rather be rejected by an employer for speaking my truth, than lie to be somewhere I'd rather not be.

This a very condescending and privileged comment. The job market is much different when you're just starting out, and it's especially brutal these days for new grads.

The "you don't know what it's like for me" argument swings both ways.

Maybe it’s condescending, but it’s valid. I have made sacrifices throughout my career to maintain maximum integrity, and the least I can do is be proud of it, since I don’t have riches or possessions to be proud of.

Yeah I rage quit my job 27 years ago and have been a struggling honest consultant ever since. Clients who want actual solutions to their problems come to me. Does that sound arrogant? Well I also have no savings and don’t own a house.

I don’t regret most of my choices, but I am aware that if somebody paid me enough money I would walk away from my principles. It would have to be a LOT of money.

It is not. I made that choice in the past and will do it again.

"Speak the truth, even if your voice shakes"

>* I made that choice in the past*

You were replying to “The job market is much different when you're just starting out”. The past is not now, and you are not just starting out, so your comparison of their position and yours is invalid IMO.

> and will do it again.

Good for you for sticking to your guns, I'm about to do the same with a company that has all but said “dig into AI or get left behind”¹, but those starting out as freshly minted grads likely do not have the luxuries that we might have² and the jobs market is freakishly competitive for them right now³ in a way that I don't think it ever has been before.

--------

[1] time will tell if I leave of my own volition before getting kicked!

[2] experience (both actual experience and experience “talking the talk”) to help getting the next gig, a mortgage paid off so making ends meet is easier, etc.

[3] It had been heading that way for a while, the recent explosion of GenAI+agnetics has made it worse.

What if the way you use AI isn't particularly important to you? Are you willing to sacrifice employment for a principle you wouldn't draw as a line in the sand?

Sometimes it's okay to say "I don't know" and it's okay to say "I don't care" and it's okay to say "It doesn't matter much to me".

Every interview is corpospeak where you infer the intended meaning of words anyway.

You’ve actively made the choice to go hungry instead of hedging your answers during an interview?

I certainly feigned enthusiasm when I was in high school to get an after school job in order to help my family buy food.

Yes.

I honestly find that quite hard to believe.

Lack of adequate calories and nutrition negatively compound. You lose the ability to focus, you increase your medical risk.

I experienced that in my childhood. It’s terrible. I did very poorly academically when I did not have access to food. It’s astonishing to me how fast my academic performance improved after consistently having access to food.

Saying you would rather put yourself at risk instead of hedge your answer on a minor interview question in order to increase your chances of getting a job offer seems like an issue with prioritization.

Correct. I did it anyway (and yes, it was awful).

That's fucked up. If those are your values, that's all well and good, but you can't expect someone else to make the same decision.

Job interviews are a performance where you demonstrate you understand what professional expectations are and can abide by them. It's not dishonesty to not respond "I drink too much" when they ask "what's your biggest weakness?" just like it's not dishonesty to respond "can't complain" when someone asks "how are you today," even if you have a lot to complain about.

Once I interviewed someone and they described their tax fraud scheme to me. We didn't go with that candidate. Not per se because they committed tax fraud; because they demonstrated terrible judgment.

Having any kind of integrity is expensive, financially, emotionally and sometimes physically.

Software development is not that high-stakes of a job anyway. There is always another interview. I got another one soon enough, where the employee AI policy fully aligned with mine, so telling the truth was an easy, pleasant experience.

Imagine you are a pilot or doctor. Any kind of interview reply that doesn't fully align with your values now carries a real risk for human lives.

What I'm telling you is that it isn't an issue of integrity, and that only makes sense from a false premise - that the strictest, most blunt response is what is truest, what is being asked for, or a reflection of your alignment with the organization's values. That's really not the case. If I asked you how you were doing would you tell me about the traumas you're currently processing? Would you feel like it was a violation of your integrity if you didn't?

If that's what your values are, okay, I'm not going to tell you how to live, but it would be premised on a misunderstanding of what "hi, how are you today?" means.

I am not worried about what my pilot said in a job interview, I'm worried about what the check pilot thinks of their performance. Worrying about what they said in a job interview is like worrying about what they scored on the SAT. Once that hurdle is cleared, it instantly becomes irrelevant, because it was never measuring what we're actually interested in. It's a filter for people who are completely unqualified, it doesn't really measure a level of performance or alignment.

Culture begins at the front door, corporate or personal.

I would expect absolute sincerity from pilot or a doctor during the interview, including history of mental health and professional mistakes. Authority over lives of people must come with full transparency. If you are caught lying or misrepresenting your experience and skills, not only you would lose your job, you should be blacklisted from occupation as well.

In every skill, everyone benefits from honesty, both employers and employees. But I am aware this is a minority view.

Again, while I respect that that is your view of sincerity, I don't agree, and I'm not talking about lying, which is obviously inappropriate. Framing is not the same as lying (though taken to an extreme it becomes a lie of omission). There's also just a misunderstanding of what is being asked by questions like "what's your biggest weakness?" Language can be ambiguous, just because a very literal and extreme interpretation of a question exists doesn't mean that is what is being asked.

I don't think we're going to bridge this gap but I also don't think that's really necessary. People have different values and it is what it is.

Fair enough. I appreciate your civility.

This betrays quite a bit of ignorance about what the code created for certain companies is used to do.

You should really examine your situation and beliefs if you think this isn’t a privileged position to be in.

We live in an ecosystem where we (engineers/developers) can promote ourselves and display our skills/acumen/values/professionalism/responsibility in an unequivocal way. Regardless of your experience level.

I bootstrapped myself from poverty to Staff software engineer, past the age of 45.

Is that privileged? Or sheer will and force of effort?

I am not unique. I am an example.

Privilege, yes. You had the privilege to dedicate time to learning skills required, obtaining an education, probably bias during hiring processes, etc.

Even though your position might be the result of effort on your part, you do have to acknowledge that you’re privileged to be in a position to expend that effort on what you want, instead of something else, like finding fresh water daily, or whatever. It’s not sheer will that you were born in a (even marginally) more favorable environment than others.

The term “privilege” here doesn’t just mean a trust fund nepo baby.

How far could you reduce this down? Do you only clap for malnourished Ethiopian babies that can't find waterthat grow up into full silicon Valley software engineers?

You can be dismissive all you want, but the point is to acknowledge you don’t understand everyone’s situation and you can’t make sweeping generalizations like “I did it and I can judge you if you _didn’t_ do it”.

Goes both way, yes.

History has examples of extremely underprivileged people not compromising on the values even when facing death or torture.

That value usually isn't not telling white lies of no importance in a job interview.

When does it stop, though?

A white lie during interview, a deadline you promised and knew you could not deliver? A product you ship that claims to do X, but it doesn't?

All's fair in business and war.

You can also acknowledge that most people abandon their principles long before they are anywhere close to starving and will not be harmed (physically) by being reminded of that.

To the people subscribing to "privilege theory", all positive differences are privilege and all negative differences are oppression, no matter if earned or self inflicted.

That's the logical conclusion you're forced to arrive at if you take these people seriously.

Just saying, anyone calling themselves an example is someone I'll ignore (but I'll reply to explain the rationale)

This is the mentality that says that if your company goes bust, you didn't work hard enough. Sometimes effort might be the problem..

No, not everyone can make it from nowhere to staff software engineer. That doesn't mean they're not trying hard enough.

OK how about some real achievements in life, is raising kids the hard way? Career is but a small portion of QoL and overall achievements as human beings, basically all of us software devs these days live have very above-average incomes although most feel like they are deserved or even not enough. So studying from poverty to software is an achievement and big move, usually, but what specific position afterwards is not that important or impressive, its just a question of a) mental capacity, mostly genetic and b) effort put into work, while not elsewhere.

Ie I increased my salary, doing same job, all 100% perm position, roughly 30x compared to my first fulltime software dev job after university. Who cares? It doesn't mean anything, just an afterthought. I am father of 2 small kids, and trying my best to be a good father and role model, often succeeding, sometimes failing. Its by far the hardest effort of my life, it takes relentless 20-25 years and I see otherwise brilliant folks failing at this hard left and right.

Also I wish folks in IT were a bit more humble and considered other engineering careers, with +- same effort taking to get a degree, and much worse career progress/compensation/freedom to choose one's path. Arrogance is much more rare there.

Even “unprivileged” people are moral actors that can take their high road at personal cost.

What do you think privilege is?

A vague word that can be spun to your own perspective based on a tower of other vague words and personal values.

I don’t think we’re talking about slaves are we?

It's slavery or nothing, eh? Whatever happened to nuance?

It got dismissed as only being an option for the privileged.

When I was starting out in my career it was "take the first job offer that comes along or starve/become homeless" so no, sometimes the personal cost would be unreasonably high to expect of anyone

This effectively does mean that I was not a moral actor at the time

Naw that’s cope. You make your choices, own them.

Would you have stolen or murdered to avoid being homeless? Would that have been a morally blameless act?

Christ - that's a strawman if I ever did see one haha.

Most people will steal to avoid being homeless.

Hacker news is full of people having given up, building torment nexii and coping/rationalizing _incredibly_ hard.

So while I agree that privilege is certainly a factor, so is what I've just said.

A lot of people here live very cushy lives that cushion them from very pointy thoughts and questions. As someone who too has to live in this world, I'd rather they didn't.

Highly paid enginners hiding behind "I have no choice I would be hungry" are usually just lying to themselves.

And you dont even get these nearly as often from people who work in lower paid positions. Or who are actually making moral tradeoffs that affects their income.

I have seen engineers take paycut or risk it because of this or that moral conviction. Not wanting to lie to customer, refusing job for gambling company, working one day less per week so that he volunteers for biblical something.

Just telling management no or just communicating about your work with ai or lack of it are not even one of those.

I believe that I must be truthful because of my faith, though I understand people feeling pressure otherwise. I have had to quit places that I found lying to part of the employees before.

It is very sad to me that people do feel that pressure, and how the current job market is.

On topic with the article, I would love to be able to trust AI with more, but have found that I have some useful moments with it, but more because of Internet search not being how it used to be for quality.

I think it depends. The people that I know that have made significant sacrifices to live along their morals are usually people who 1) are intensely bitter when others will not sacrifice as much as them; 2) are completely understanding of people who will not sacrifice as much as them or acknowledge that they simply have less to sacrifice than others. For example someone who is willing to live the "dirtbag" lifestyle out of their car to dedicate to their outdoorsman activity who is either bitter others have the relative financial security or feel immensely grateful they have consistently good enough health that allows them to be outdoors with so little resources.

For example I think the decision to stick to certain morals is very hard if someone has a disabled dependent, are disabled themselves, or require consistent access to healthcare. There are different lines for different people of course. Our ire shouldn't go towards individuals who make these decisions but the people in power who force others to be in a position where these decisions need to be made.

In the end, everyone makes their own choices.

I don't want to preach martyrdom, but I am also offended by people choosing moral bankruptcy when faced with even the slightest hardships.

This isn't a value item for most people. Employer doesn't want ai used great handcoding or employer wants ai used great prompt coding.

My truth is I don't care either way . I get the sense that's the same for parent poster. They just want a job and to say the right thing to get past the hiring filter. Even if I did have a truth its not something I would put above being remote, pay and how a company develops software. I'd rather not have a truth and not have a daily standup.

It’s also possible to not really hold that strong an opinion on things. Not everything is a pitched battle where doing what your employer wants means you’ve sacrificed your integrity.

From far away, it's hard to tell the difference between integrity and anti sociality. Even though I believe "software engineering integrity" exists, you can see how it's hard to tell that apart from "software engineers who stir dramas or are annoying to work with."

The job market being as it is, a lot of people simply don't have that luxury.

Cite needed - FAANG certainly leaned hard into ‘lie to survive’.

Everyone can decide where the line is for them, but I do feel like given the subject that's a bit of a hyperbolic repsonse.

It's still just a bad answer across the board. Having opinions and being able to articulate and defend them clearly is itself an extremely important hiring signal regardless of a company's stance on generative AI. An AI-forward company will be looking for an answer like "I haven't written code manually since 2025, I use ..., I stay on top of new tools without drowning in hype by ..." If that's not your answer, you probably aren't a good fit for those companies, but companies that would be a fit will still want a similar level of decisiveness. Much better to give an honest answer that will sound good to the right people than a wishy-washy answer that will sound bad to everyone.

Surviving in most companies requires a certain amount of wishywashiness.

A truthful, nuanced, well reasoned answer will be well received by an employer with a culture you want to work in.

> an employer with a culture you want to work in

A modern luxury, unavailable to many.

>A truthful, nuanced, well reasoned answer will be well received by an employer with a culture you want to work in.

If you're into long shot betting AND your savings aren't running out while waiting to land a new job, that might be a good strategy

as a rule the interviewee should be assessing for goodness of fit, as well as the interviewer. If my simplified nuanced answer to why I limit my usage of LLMs was poorly received, I wouldn't want to take a job somewhere likely to make me miserable.

Correct. Me either.

Unless I'm looking after about 6 months and my savings isn't as healthy as it once was. Or one of my kids is sick. Or pretty much anything happens costing money.

Then I'll be miserable for a little while as I continue my job search.

Practicality, sometimes, is more important than ethics when other people rely on you.

"Unless I was really excited for flipping burgers, the menu options, the new McKidney, non-working ice-cream machines, and the legacy of Ronald McDonald, I wouldn't want to take a job somewhere likely to make me miserable".

A lot of jobs don't work based on those criteria. In a bad job market, IT jobs don't either. Especially if it's your 20th application with no response.

I don’t see why “truthful, nuanced, well reasoned” is the long-shot vs cagey and evasive.

Obviously because the latter lands more jobs.

Have you seen the job market lately?

You call the response "cagey and evasive", but that is for an objectively a bad interview question, one wrung below "How many years experience do you have prompting Anthropic Opus? We are an Opus shop." People are not locked into their current way of using AI and it is trivial to match how one works with AI to match employers requirements. It's a question that deserves an idealized non-answer

In what way is “How are you using AI?” an objectively bad question?

Remember the context - this is while solving a whiteboard problem. Its bad in the same way asking candidate what their birthstone is - because any answer offer little or no signal about the odds of a candidates success at the company.

I'm curious to know why you think asking about AI usage is a good interview question.

If you're going to have people use AI regularly, it's worth asking so that you can get a sense of their interest/willingness, experience level, and training needs. That said, more specific questions are typically more revealing. Personally I'm fond of "If you could give Claude only 1 instruction, what would it be?"

You're fond of asking candidates an unrealistic hypothetical and you think that's revealing?

Yep. I sure do.

If you're outright lying to yourself to land a job to make rent, fine, but for god's sake internalize it as a temporary stepping stone and immediately start looking for a better fit.

Average ZIRP era HN advice. Not applicable anymore.

This thread is about new grads. Have you talked to anyone looking for junior positions lately? They don't get to choose employers anymore. Heck, many of them will not even get a chance to enter the field if the current junior hiring situation continues.

Plenty of good companies have awful recruiting and interviewing practices. The reverse is true as well.

But it doesn't make sense to do a job you'd hate. Just be honest, land the job where you're happy.

But no one will pay me to watch tv all day

Oh but they will: https://gracenote.com/. These people sit and watch TV, note down every event taking place then sell the data. Search for Infostrada and how it came under Gracenote. That's where the info like "this is his first X since the game Y Z years ago" comes from.

If you're good enough at it, I suppose someone would. (There are television critics after all.)

But I'm just curious: if someone were to give you a living wage to do nothing but watch TV all day for the rest of your life, how many years do you think might go by before you would start to ask yourself, Is this really what I want to spend my one, exquisite, irreplaceable life on?

Maslow's hierarchy of needs comes into play.

> But it doesn't make sense to do a job you'd hate. Just be honest, land the job where you're happy.

In this economy it's really a luxury to nitpick about the job when there are bills to pay, mouths to feed, a roof over one's head is a must. The well of have a lot more options regarding this.

As a software developer with a non-bloated lifestyle? Bullshit.

> it doesn't make sense to do a job you'd hate

That assumes using/not using ai will make me hate the job. Which is not true at all for me. Would be perfectly happy either way. (Or rather to say my happyness would depend on other factors.) Obviously i wouldn’t want to be the only team member not using AI in a team using AI or vice versa.

Answer like that, be honest.

I'd assume they're seeking longevity to that employment. You, or others, might be able to maintain a facade; I can't recommend it for long.

Not everyone has that luxury when there are bills to pay and mouths to feed.

Yeah, I just responded the same thing almost verbatim before reading your response. Yes, it's a luxury if you're not well off in the first place.

> Would you even want to work somewhere where you need to play a role and where they flip out when you say the wrong word you should've correctly guessed through mind reading?

This just sounds like a standard tech interview. Mind reading to find and perform the secret “signal”. Nobody flips out if you don’t find it, they just move on to one of the other 1,000 candidates for the role.

> Have you considered just answering truthfully?

I remember the graduate recruitment days - If you told the truth you were the only candidate they saw all day that wasn't the captain of the football team, top of the class and voted most likely to succeed - aka the worst candidate they saw all day.

Would being truthful improve my chances of being hired?

It's funny cause I just interviewed some people last month and I asked the same exact question. And the answer to your question is probably. The technology is so new that I expect people to have a variety of different opinions.

From the 3 people I interviewed, all of the answers are very similar which is along the lines of: Kinda, but we need to be careful of using it, privacy, hallucination, etc.

All very safe answers and doesn't say anything new to me. If they had been more specific about why and their experiences with it, I'd probably favor them more due to their experience with it. It'd also signal to me that they form their own opinion rather than simply following the crowd.

It sounds like you're an AI-happy employer though. What if their truthful answer was that they never tried to use LLMs and refuse to because they waste water or because of an overconfident view of their own skills, or they don't want to help a clanker steal their job? These are all popular beliefs that can easily come from following the right crowd rather than forming their own opinion. In fact, from what I usually hear of people's opinions, they almost never come up with them themselves, you can practically predict people's opinions on some topics just from what they look like (what social group they belong to) or what other unrelated opinions they've already told you.

I guess that's the point though? If their opinion only comes from common popular opinions, then that signal is quite useless to me.

In this case though, I'll admit that it would be a negative signal if they never tried it even once and refuse to do so. You can't make a solid opinion on things you never try after all. It would be different if they at least gave it a shot and disliked it.

> You can't make a solid opinion on things you never try after all.

Of course you can, from the effect you see it have on others. Not everyone needs to do hard drugs to say they are bad for example.

> In this case though, I'll admit that it would be a negative signal if they never tried it even once and refuse to do so

I was arguing that this is a bad question elsewhere but you provided another reason. If a candidate tells you they haven't tried using AI (without saying why), that offers no signal at how well they'll do if you hire them, and you construe it as a negative signal. If you want to know if they would be willing to use AI as part of the job ask that question instead!

> You can't make a solid opinion on things you never try after all.

What do you think about using heroin?

In this case, I wouldn't mind if they used AI or not. Honestly it'd be quite interesting to find someone who doesn't use it to hear about why. At the end of the day, I'm more concerned about how effective they'd be in their role. And if I have 2 candidate, one with better domain knowledge but no AI, and another with AI but no domain knowledge, I'd most likely pick the one with domain knowledge.

And if they can make an argument about why they're more effective without AI, more power to them. So if I were to ask the question directly as you suggest, it would be: Are you more effective than the other person I'm interviewing? - which i guess is the whole point of the interview.

> Heroin Fair point, but I also don't think that trying AI is anywhere close to the level of trying Heroin

Yes. Hedging results in a middle-of-the-road answer that, at best, comes across as lukewarm. Companies want to hire people they're excited about and are convinced fit into their culture. An honest answer will get you more strong noes but also more strong yeses, and strong yeses turn into offers. Hedging, produces only weak yeses and noes, which tend to end in no offers especially in tighter job markets like the one we're in.

If whoever is hiring is actually good at their job: yes.

That is of course assuming that they're looking for some long-term stable team member.

A skilled interviewer smells dishonesty.

However, and to be fair, whether and how they act on it depends on the specific situation.

What is this "skilled interviewer" thing and where have you seen it?

While this industry surely is frustrating and full of pitiful fraudsters, I don't think that what you're saying is fair or leading us anywhere.

Most of our stuff in this world actually does work, and the reason why it does is that skilled (teams of) people that care have built it. Meaning that these people can be found in many _many_ places.

The skilled interviewer is rare. But if truly skilled they understand why people hedge and would not consider that dishonesty but a skillset the company might need. A semi-skilled interview might pick up on that and assume the worst.

Very few jobs are looking for opinioned most are looking at people who might fit in unless you are hiring to distory from without.

I don't think having trouble knowing how to tailor your message to your audience because of limited information implies it isn't truthful. Answers to jobb interview questions are usually very manicured and rehearsed but I don't think they're generally lies.

Because almost every HR department now has a directive to only let people through the screening process who say they are using "fully agentic workflows" even though that's moronic.

As if most people have a choice in the matter.

To be honest, I don't think I would want to work with or hire you, based on your response here.

> Have you considered just answering truthfully?

It's 2026, you gotta sell your soul just to get a phone screening

> Have you considered just answering truthfully?

We all filter and “nudge” the truth during interviews. We all cater our responses to the person in front of us. Let’s not pretend otherwise. Your interviewers sure aren’t.

> Have you considered just answering truthfully? ... That sounds not like a job but a toxic relationship.

It's a job, not a relationship. It's best not to confuse the two.

In any workplace, you will occasionally have to do things you find boring or objectionable. And if you're hoping to find a corporation that is a "perfect match", it will only hurt more when they unceremoniously fire you because the quarterly revenue growth is 1% off or because you cracked an off-color joke.

> It's a job, not a relationship. It's best not to confuse the two.

A relationship is defined as two parties that interact.

It's not friends, it's not romantic, and it's definitely not family, but a job _is_ a relationship.

That said, GP is absolutely correct that you can fall into toxic relationships with your employer. Especially in the US where, realistically, we're forced to rely on our employer for too many things (e.g. healthcare coverage), employers can and do take advantage of the situation.

You're being pedantic. By your standard, I also have a relationship with the DMV, and to avoid a "toxic relationship" (parent's language), I should be honest with them about all the times I rolled past a stop sign.

I didn't get that read.

I agree with their "two parties interacting is a relationship". Hell, I have a "relationship" at the checkout as they scan my groceries. But it's not deep or long lasting, so as you'd expect either party makes near zero effort.

Secondly, they never said that every relationship requires perfect honesty in all things. I'm not volunteering to my checkout person that I will eat that party bag size chips in one sitting. They don't need to know and it's highly likely they don't care. I'll be gone out of their life in a minute.

However, your entire relationship with your employer is roughly based on "benefits for work". It is a recurring interaction, probably over a significant length of time. So it seems reasonable to be honest about how you work to avoid making the relationship toxic from the start.

But then I also agree with "Do whatever it takes to survive." and if toxic relationships mean you keep breathing, well it sucks but there it is.

I am fortunate to not be in that "survival" position so honesty works for me.

Define objectionable? Not ethical is not illegal but maybe if you are okay with it, do it for yourself. Illegal is just dumb, you are still responsible. So at least, if you are doing, make sure you are appropriately compensated.

The parent was talking about giving a diplomatic answer about your attitude / use of AI. I'm not talking about Enron here.

"Have you considered just answering truthfully?"

Said by no-one who has a decent paying job and has bills to pay

Even a truthful answer can require a lot of long-winded disclaimers because an interview is a new relationship without shared context. You have to state the obvious because nothing can be taken for granted.

You are playing a role at every job. In 20+ years I've never had a job where there would be no negative consequences for speaking truth to power

> Have you considered just answering truthfully?

This is terrible advice.

Everybody lies on interviews. Especially the interviewer.

> Have you considered just answering truthfully?

To give you just a little more context than other commenters -

You answer truthfully when you're interviewing from a position of power. Either you're already employed somewhere and you're taking your time exploring your options to see if maybe you can end up somewhere a little better, or you're an employer with applicants lined out the door and you want to winnow them down to the best match. In either case, you don't care too deeply if an individual interview sucks, you just move on.

Truth is always the first casualty of war. And when someone is out of work and fighting for their ~life~ livelihood, or a founder is trying to convince the first customer or the first engineer to take a risk on them so that they can get their baby off the ground, the truth dies real quickly.

Sometimes the only reason you don't have power is because you have internalized the idea that you don't.

That's true, but it's about as helpful as a self-help book. Therapists, coaches, mentors are all helpful in that case.

>Have you considered just answering truthfully?

It's a job interview, you're not supposed to do that, and they don't appreciate it when you do. Try something like:

  - Where do you see yourself in 5 years?
  - Working at a much better company than 
    this shithole

and see how it goes.

The two job interviews I had recently - the interviewers were clearly AI maximalists. My answer each time had been to the effect of "yeah I use it but I make sure to check it over thoroughly since it can make mistakes" and I'm guessing that wasn't the answer they were looking for.

It's a gamble of the dice as to whether the engineering manager is equally realistic about LLMs or has unrealistic expectations about what LLMs can or can't do.

This isn’t an AI problem. You can’t ask anyone to “be truthful” on any subject because everyone sees through their own world perspective.

Two people might say “they love camping!!”

But does it mean…

- Going camping twice/year and partying by the river?

- Or going 20 times per year, sometimes on 4 week long trips?

Both types of people will, with complete honesty, tell you “they love camping” and only you, the asker of the question, can decode what that means. ayli can’t

At this point, why wouldn't you ask on the phone screen what attitude towards AI is?

I would hedge towards AI usage if you didn't probe before and then justify why.

Ymmv, can also gauge whether you want to work for the company based on this

Interviews work both ways: employers select employees, employees select employers.

Unfortunately often employees forget that part of the goals of an interview. An employer never forgets its goal.

Of course the asymmetry stems principally from who pais whom and secondarily from who can wait more to find a better fit. Sometimes that's the employee.

If one is not desperate to get a salary immediately, it helps thinking that the company applied for an interview and agreed to let the interviewer come and inspect their premises, their personnel and their processes. The right questions derive from that realization. By the way, that's what auditors do.

On top of the other answer, the people interviewing you might be HR people ressource with limited tech knowledge and this lack of nuance.

They are here recruit "AI ready engineer" or other vague, bullshitty slogan.

You often need to pass this first barrier to discuss with real futur colleagues. Thus you have to give them what they want to hear.

Which is hard on AI considering how polarised the subject is.

Ha. Interviewing is about answering questions in the way your interviewer wants them to be answered. It is a game of trying to "read minds" by figuring out the most common/best possible interview answer for any given question even if it doesnt reflect your own personal opinion.

People will say this is bad but then when they interview folks judge the interviewee if they dont answer questions how they expected the question to be answered.

To this point, there are many advantages to answering truthfully. The job might be tailored (a little) to your expertise. Maybe the heavy AI tickets will get de-prioritized from your queue if you say you have light experience. If you say you're all in on AI, you just might find yourself becoming an AI expert out of necessity. Not because that's what the company wanted out of filling the position initially, but because that's what they got. It's expensive to have an open seat. The interviewing door swings both ways. You're looking for a fit just as they're looking for a fit. Going in every day pretending to be "a fraud" (or however else you might start to internalize it) eventually starts to weigh on the body, soul, and mind.