The better way existed before AI existed. Take-home tasks were always poor attempts to find a measure for technical ability. Pairing exercises or live problem-solving tasks were, and still are, vastly more effective. If your team uses AI for those challenges on the job, then the people you interview should too.
The measure should always be the quality of a solution a candidate produces in response to a problem, not how they got to the solution. If you want to dive into the 'how' then what you're actually measuring is communication, something AI is still pretty bad at.
I am curious about how the companies that claim their devs never wrote or reviewed a line of code in the last 6+ months react to this... they basically would have to just judge how the candidate writes a prompt or gathers the information to write it
I think that's a reasonable part of the assessment but the focus is primarily on the candidates understanding of the output and essentially their ability to QA the output.
The better way existed before AI existed. Take-home tasks were always poor attempts to find a measure for technical ability. Pairing exercises or live problem-solving tasks were, and still are, vastly more effective. If your team uses AI for those challenges on the job, then the people you interview should too.
The measure should always be the quality of a solution a candidate produces in response to a problem, not how they got to the solution. If you want to dive into the 'how' then what you're actually measuring is communication, something AI is still pretty bad at.
I am curious about how the companies that claim their devs never wrote or reviewed a line of code in the last 6+ months react to this... they basically would have to just judge how the candidate writes a prompt or gathers the information to write it
I think that's a reasonable part of the assessment but the focus is primarily on the candidates understanding of the output and essentially their ability to QA the output.
I just call and talk to a candidate one call that’s it