AI is everywhere, even in interview

In our everyday life, use of AI has become the new normal. I heavily use AI in personal life as well as professionally, so it plays a very close role in my life. However, I notice that as its usage becomes prevalent, some people can’t stop using it. Here’s the story I just faced TODAY.

In my work, I have been interviewing for a potential teammate. As this position carries technical responsibility (data engineer), it’s required to utilize AI during the technical interview. The live technical assignment I use has both an AI-supported programming task and an AI-prohibited algorithmic task. As I highlighted live, it’s expected to be impossible to cheat. However, it happened today: so-called AI-cheating, in person.

As I wanted to assess how the candidate utilizes AI, I started with the AI-assisted problem-solving case. The candidate had prepared a repository claiming to have helper functions. I consider this a positive sign, as the candidate had prepared something for this interview.

The candidate starts writing a prompt, and I ask what the intention behind it is. The candidate writes a prompt full of comprehensive keywords. Okay, it’s a good sign. It looks a bit unnatural, injecting only keywords, but okay, maybe the candidate is considering how token embedding works by focusing on keywords.

Initially, the candidate couldn’t understand the purpose of the problem; however, in a short time, the candidate provided better context. I regarded this as fast learning from the problem. Okay, it’s a good sign.

The issue starts with the non-AI-assisted case. I offered a short 2-minute restroom break before the next phase. A brief breath of fresh air, then on to the next task. The candidate read through the problem in detail and understood the case very well. I heard a few typing sounds, so my suspicion started, but I let the candidate continue. First, I didn’t want to offend the candidate. Second, if it’s cheating, it’s better to detect it than to give a chance to stop. It’s better because cheating during an interview means any serious cheating could happen once working together.

Anyhow, the candidate completed the interview quite well. A bit of guidance and support from me as an interviewer was provided, but it was well done. Okay, it’s a good sign. Time to work on the next problem. Again, it’s supposed to be a non-AI-assisted problem. This time, I was sitting next to the candidate, discussing how to solve it. The brilliant candidate becomes silent. Nothing progressed, for one reason only: I’m next to the candidate. Suddenly, a Claude Code artifact pops up during the interview. Okay, it’s apparent that another agent session is running in parallel with the non-AI-assisted challenge. Initially, the candidate switches the tab, but when I ask to open it, the candidate is speechless.

I gently ask the candidate to open the running terminal. It has the whole history of cheating. Interesting. The candidate’s brilliant answers in all phases came from this. The session shows /rc, which means remote control of the session. Not 100% sure, but it’s suspicious that the candidate could read the non-AI-assisted problems’ content through the Claude Code app. The excuse for cheating is apparently: “it’s for my personal learning, I don’t cheat.” Okay, it’s expected. A quick acknowledgment and apology would have been ideal at the end of this. However, it’s hard to admit. Denial is easy.

So, what’s my take? People get dumber by delegating thinking to AI. It’s a great channel to explore knowledge and sharpen ideas. However, as soon as we give up thinking for ourselves, it becomes a counterproductive tool. It is easy to make fun of others, but I should observe myself to see if I do the same.