I'm familiar with this story, this is the person who founded the software being discussed/linked... but what does this do to explain why a competent interviewer was unable to suss out that the person had no idea what they were doing?
Bluffing in interviews is nearly a given. Your interview should be designed to suss out the best fit; the cheaters should not even rank into the final consideration if you did a decent interview and met the person via some sort of live interaction.
You’re right, a competent interviewer can likely suss out that a person is cheating - but it can depend on the type of interview and role. This can help erase any doubt, as if you are not familiar with what is being discussed, it is hard to differentiate this type of question.
We found that some of our existing interviews for roles like technical support could be “cheated” using Cluely to some degree, when asking questions about solving example support issues which might have troubleshooting steps in an LLMs training set and if the interviewee is someone who is loosely familiar and presenting as being more familiar with the topics.
Before these sort of tools [Cluely], there wasn’t a good way that I'm aware of to cheat on this type of question and respond without any interruption or pause in the conversation.
In real support situations, the tool is not useful as you could pass a major hallucination on to a customer, of course.
Maybe I'm wrong, it just seems obvious to me when a candidate has the kind of knowledge potential on a subject to want them on my team vs. "they answered that question with some sort of accuracy" which is what I would expect from people skimming and responding in an interview as if they had an earpiece.
I have worked a lot of places in different fields where the HR team leading initial interviews had zero awareness of the role or what the role would really be doing, so I could see Cluely passing those interviews. But surely the team would smell the deception?
As far as I can see, Dynamicland is not open-sourced because it's a building and community exploring new ways of thinking and learning collaboratively. These collaborations involve novel interactions with physical things. So far, this has nothing to do with something that could be open-sourced on GitHub. It just so happens that this new way of collaborating with physical things involves giving them access to computation.
I know this comment will seem pedantic, but I hope it also communicates that the goals of this research project are different than you seem (at least to me) to consider. Bret Victor's goal isn't to design a system of projectors and cameras that run code on pieces of paper (just like Engelbart's goal wasn't to design the mouse). At a certain level, Bret Victor wants to explode our concept of computing.
