Code.org: Use AI In an Interview Without Our OK and You're Dead To Us
- Reference: 0180598916
- News link: https://news.slashdot.org/story/26/01/16/1313243/codeorg-use-ai-in-an-interview-without-our-ok-and-youre-dead-to-us
- Source link:
> Code.org, the nonprofit backed by AI giants Microsoft, Google and Amazon and whose Hour of AI and free AI curriculum aim to make world's K-12 schoolchildren AI literate, points job seekers to its [2]AI Use Policy in Hiring , which promises dire consequences for those who use AI during interviews or take home assignments without its OK.
>
> Explaining "What's Not Okay," Code.org writes: "While we support thoughtful use of AI, certain uses undermine fairness and honesty in the hiring process. We ask that candidates do not [...] use AI during interviews and take-home assignments without explicit consent from the interview team. Such use goes against our values of integrity and transparency and will result in disqualification from the hiring process."
>
> Interestingly, Code.org CEO Partovi last year faced some blowback from educators over his LinkedIn post that [3]painted schools that police AI use by students as dinosaurs . Partovi wrote, "Schools of the past define AI use as 'cheating.' Schools of the future define AI skills as the new literacy. Every desk-job employer is looking to hire workers who are adept at AI. Employers want the students who are best at this new form of 'cheating.'"
[1] https://slashdot.org/~theodp
[2] https://code.org/en-US/about/ai-use-policy
[3] https://www.linkedin.com/posts/hadip_schools-scramble-to-police-ai-cheating-activity-7334635430069342208-j-Qm/
Re: (Score:2)
Even with in-person interviews, you can't be 100% certain that they aren't coding guided by the vibrations of an anal bead.
Yeah, well (Score:4, Insightful)
> We ask that candidates do not [...] use AI during interviews and take-home assignments without explicit consent from the interview team.
Assign a take-home task as part of your interview and you're dead to me, so I guess we're even?
I'm getting dependent on it. (Score:2)
I'm a gray beard developer, so I've been coding WAY longer than AI has been around. I don't vibe code in any way, but when I'm coding in VS Code with Copilot enabled, I'll be typing a line and AI figures out what I'm doing and completes the line. TAB. Next line, AI figures out what I'm doing and completes the line. TAB.
I'm getting used to it and maybe a little dependent on it. Put me in a coding interview without AI, and it might be harder than it used to be.
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, there's just no reason to memorize all these huge API's any more. Is that the same as letting AI take over the design of your code? Nope.
Re: (Score:1)
Coding without any AI assistance will be much like LeetCode in that it will be a skill that developers must learn in order to pass coding interviews, which have nothing to do with how coding is done on the job.
Oh No! (Score:2)
A completely reasonable and intelligent policy that does not, in anyway, invalidate their greater message or goal.
Let's try to make a big deal out of of this outrage clickbait. /s
Analogy: 'Winchester firearms does not tolerate the use of firearms as a coercive tool during the hiring process.'
It's not a double standard.
We do the same (Score:5, Insightful)
We do not allow candidates to use AI, IDEs, or high level languages to perform their coding tests. In their real jobs we know they use these things, but why should the hiring process reflect the skillset we require?
Re: (Score:1)
Nothing is really changing here. When has the hiring process ever really reflected the skillset required?
Re: (Score:2)
Exactly.
This seems like laziness from Code.org.
Rather than rejecting candidates that use AI, how about instead adapting your candidate evaluation process to evaluate if they know how to productively use AI coding tools (beyond just "vibe code me an app to do X").
Using AI isn't cheating - it's a tool that as a developer you need to learn to use.
It's like rejecting a candidate that is using a calculator to do math, or for using Google to search for an algorithm, rather that doing math with pencil and paper an
does anyone need code.org (Score:2)
Why should anyone play their gatekeeper games? Just move on, they're basically irrelevant anyway
Fuck code.org (Score:2)
code.org: Do what we say, not what we do.
Also code.org: We'll pay you not to teach boys.
Fuck code.org
Right back at you (Score:1)
You use AI in the hiring process, you're dead to me.
Remember, a candidate also interviews you and your company. If you think it is a one-way process, you just failed the interview.
This is a good example of (Score:2)
why universities frequently ignore what industry and society SAYS it needs. One month, why havent we put AI into literally every course, including English and history. What, our toilet paper dispensers arent AI? Whats wrong with us dinosaurs? Next month, the companies consider AI to be cheating and blame the educational system for being too AI friendly. One month, industry demands Java and python skills. The next month, theyre trashing the universities because we havent produced millions of AI programmers w
Ability and willingness to follow instructions (Score:1)
Maybe the real "test" is your ability and willingness to follow instructions even if you think they are inefficient/wrong/not-the-way-I-would-do-it.
Those are things management is usually looking for even if they won't say so out loud.
Or take the cynical view: Maybe management is looking for people who can lie and not be caught, with the goal of promoting to the C-suite.
Slamming the lookback buffer behind them. (Score:5, Funny)
Before everyone starts dunking on this, remember that it's possible, even likely, that Code.org used an LLM to write their AI-use policy.
And then resume dunking.
Re: (Score:2)
Anyone want to take bets on how long it takes their corporate masters to make them square their policy with their marketing efforts like stuffing co-pilot everywhere they can?