At this point, the only thing that really works, is to have the student/candidate in front of you when you are testing them. In video interviews can be faked, take home can be faked. For schools etc it doesn't matter, if the kid doesn't learn anything, it is on them to waste their time. But when hiring, it makes a huge difference to not have a candidate who cheated.
For a variety of reasons (not just LLMs), I think it's generally cheap and lazy for companies not to do some sort of in-person interview panel. It's not just or even primarily about candidates "cheating." We all did what we had to do during COVID but in-person is just a higher bandwidth interaction. And if candidates don't want to travel? <shrug> Plenty of fish in the the sea.
There's zero chance of that. Democrats didn't even trust their own base to have a primary for Kamala because she would repeat her 2019 primary performance.
> This sounds like a situation where even if it is deliberate enemy action the appropriate thing to do is ask them to stop. Maybe invite the Chinese diplomats in, tell them to stop, then expel the embassy for a week and then allocate some extra budget to cable repairs.
LOL. This is hilarious. Its kind of like someone who has never experienced gang warfare stepping into an inner city turf asking opposite sides to take their grievance to cops.
“Ten years later, as a postdoctoral researcher at Oxford in 1976, I experienced a minor epiphany about ambition’s degradation. At age 16 or 17, I had wanted to be another Einstein; at 21, I would have been happy to be another Feynman; at 24, a future T. D. Lee would have sufficed. By 1976, sharing an office with other postdoctoral researchers at Oxford, I realized that I had reached the point where I merely envied the postdoc in the office next door because he had been invited to give a seminar in France. In much the same way, by a process options theorists call time decay, financial stock options lose their potential as they approach their own expiration.”, Emanuel Derman, My life as a Quant
In a similar boat and I'll add another point. Any new system leads to a temporary increase in focus and productivity. Then it steadily drops off. What this told me is that new systems, as long as they don't have a steep entry ramp are good to get that temporary boost. Just don't expect it to last for months. Also, I found a fair number of high performing people are unorganized, but they often have secretaries and coaches who are themselves organized to get things done for them. But if you are not at a point where you can afford one, you have to learn to get these things yourselves.
>Any new system leads to a temporary increase in focus and productivity.
I used to try to be very organized and adopt different systems to do so. Unfortunately due to the variety of things I do, I ended up creating the XKCD "you now have 14 competing standards" problem. My efforts to impose order only created more chaos. I have since just created a big monolithic txt file for notes, and a directory sorted by date modified. Delete old things, rename new things appropriately, and then use proper search tools like Voidtools Everything. When a project is complete, that's when I start organizing it, because that's when I know what it should look like. I don't understand how people can work with inconsistent and constantly changing structure.
I've never seen hiring completely in the domain of HR. HR filters incoming candidates and checks for culture fit etc, but technical competency is checked by engineers/ML folks. I can't imagine an HR person checking if someone understands neural networks.
HR involvement is unavoidable at big companies; and basics like "years of experience for payband" can cause issues.
They fundamentally do not understand the job, but somehow have to ensure its not a biased hiring process.
Yes, and it is kind of necessary when hiring people from outside trusted networks. HR makes sure if people are who they say they are, background checks, and so on. Years of experience and so on are crude filters and should be bypassable by the team/hiring manager if the candidate meets the requirements. I know in large companies this can become political.
It's kind of interesting that Indian companies and H1-B abuse has been so cemented in people's minds that almost 80% of the comments here are about H1B abuse and what to do about it rather than the L1-A which this article is talking about. L1-A is a bigger source of fraud because there is fewer guardrails and most companies see it as a given if they want to move the employee. The only thing is you have to wait a year or so after hiring the employee to move them.
Because the asset price would crash if they tried to cash it. One is simply it would crash from the supply of that asset, but also it reflects to the broader public that the asset holder values cash higher going forward than the other asset which means that others would use that signal to value cash higher as well leading to a snowball effect.
