The ultimate use for "AI": "Cheat on everything!" - Page 1
Forum section: electronics / general

author: Analog Kid
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 19, 2025, 11:21:56 pm
content: Just saw this in a local news aggregator site:https://x.com/im_roy_lee/status/1936138361011585190it's just the latest outrage from a "tech bro", in this caseRoy Lee, a 21-year-old "entrepreneur" suspended from Columbia University for using his app Cluely's predecessor to cheat on an Amazon coding test.Goddamnit;fuckall these greedy, clueless, disruptive "tech-bro" assholes! Fuck all those sumbitches!They're out to destroy the world, but not before making a killing beforehand.I mean, how much more in-your-face, off-putting, juvenile and thoughtless can you get? This raises the bullshit-as-tech-innovation game to Trump-like levels.Plus the motherfucker got $15 million in Series A funding for his genius idea.Hey, I've got an idea to go along with this and other similar innovations sure to come down the pike:Why don't we just close down every institution of higher education? MIT, Harvard, USC, UCSF, Ohio State, Cambridge, McGill, Oxford; who needs 'em? Fuck 'em! We'll still need K-through-12 schooling, but after that, whoever can get their grubby mitts on the best "AI" package they can the soonest wins the job application! It's pure genius! Let the market decide! Win-win!I absolutely, resolutely, irrevocably, undeniably, unalterablyfucking hate the world that's being created here.And nobody fucking asked me about any of this.Fuck those sumbitches!

author: radiolistener
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 20, 2025, 12:08:57 am
content: I understand your frustration, but maybe what you're seeing isn't the creation of a problem, but the exposure of one that already existed.The truth is, most hiring tests - especially in tech, don't measure real skills or knowledge. They measure test-taking ability. There's an entire industry built around preparing for coding interviews, often producing candidates who excel at solving artificial problems but struggle in actual engineering work and just cannot do the job.What tools like Cluely really do is highlight how fragile and outdated the current hiring processes are. If an AI can solve your coding tests, perhaps the problem isn't the AI - it's the tests themselves.In that sense, Cluely isn't destroying a functioning system - it's accelerating the collapse of a flawed one. This might be painful, but it could ultimately force companies to rethink hiring, focusing on real-world skills, portfolio work, and actual problem-solving ability, not standardized puzzles.The question isn't whether AI should be banned from hiring processes - it's whether those processes were ever meaningful in the first place.

author: Analog Kid
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 20, 2025, 12:11:35 am
content: Quote from: radiolistener on July 20, 2025, 12:08:57 amLook; even if that's true--and it might well be--that certainly was never the motivation for this piece-of-shit "tech bro" creating this thing.And everybody knows that.

author: radiolistener
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 20, 2025, 12:13:05 am
content: If your assessment process relies on problems easily solvable by AI, then something is fundamentally wrong - you're not hiring a candidate, you're looking for an automation tool.Consider this: centuries ago, people needed to master the abacus for everyday calculations. Today, we use calculators and computers - and hardly anyone knows how to use an abacus at all.Would you argue that we should ban hiring cashiers simply because they don’t know how to operate an abacus? Probably not. The tool changed, the skill became obsolete.In the same way, if AI can solve your interview problems, perhaps it’s not the candidate who’s failing - it’s your definition of the skill itself that’s outdated.

author: Analog Kid
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 20, 2025, 12:30:15 am
content: Quote from: radiolistener on July 20, 2025, 12:13:05 amWell, we don't even know if his "tool" actually works or not, do we?So it could be a scam in yet another way.

author: radiolistener
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 20, 2025, 12:32:21 am
content: I would actually encourage candidates to use any AI tools during interviews. If a person can leverage a tool, including AI, to solve problems effectively, why restrict them? The ability to use available technologies is a skill in itself, not something that should be penalized.

author: tooki
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 20, 2025, 12:32:26 am
content: Quote from: Analog Kid on July 19, 2025, 11:21:56 pmThis articledescribing a visit to their HQ makes it sound like (my words) a loathsome den of douchebaggery full of people I would despise.

author: Analog Kid
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 20, 2025, 12:34:38 am
content: Quote from: radiolistener on July 20, 2025, 12:32:21 amWhat if you're applying for a job in the automotive industry and the "AI" tells you to use the cigarette-lighter socket to check the state of the battery?

author: radiolistener
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 20, 2025, 12:46:50 am
content: Quote from: Analog Kid on July 20, 2025, 12:34:38 amIf an AI suggests using the cigarette-lighter socket to check battery voltage, that’s precisely where human skill comes in: knowing when not to trust a tool blindly. The professional responsibility remains with the person using the tool, not the tool itself.Good practice means verifying advice, applying engineering judgment, and if needed - safeguarding against bad recommendations with clear warnings or checks. Ultimately, it's not the AI completing the task, it's the human making decisions using available tools.If you damage something while using a hammer, it's not the hammer’s fault - it’s a reflection of your own lack of skill or improper use of the tool. Such issues should be addressed not by banning hammers, but by verifying whether the person knows how to use the tool correctly to solve tasks

author: radiolistener
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 20, 2025, 01:03:06 am
content: For example, a good hiring practice could be to offer candidates a problem that current AI tools are unlikely to solve correctly. Give the candidate full access to AI, search engines, and their preferred IDE - and observe how they approach the task. This evaluates not just their raw knowledge, but their problem-solving strategy and ability to use available resources effectively.Requiring candidates to solve problems that any schoolboy could answer using AI while simultaneously forbidding AI use - is equivalent to demanding proficiency with an abacus from a cashier who will be working with a computerized point-of-sale system. It's both impractical and irrelevant.This may be disappointing to those who’ve mastered the abacus at a high level, but for a modern cashier, such skills are entirely irrelevant and provide no practical advantage.

author: booscrawl
author_rank: Contributor
timestamp: July 20, 2025, 03:50:26 am
content: Quote from: tooki on July 20, 2025, 12:32:26 amNot trying to be a troll, but this sounds kind of racist.

author: Analog Kid
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 20, 2025, 03:54:31 am
content: Quote from: booscrawl on July 20, 2025, 03:50:26 amI'd probably have that same reaction if I were to visit their den of iniquity, and I have no idea what those peoples' backgrounds are.

author: Bud
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 20, 2025, 06:11:51 am
content: I once interviewed a candidate online, and from the get go I got a feeling she was reading answers to my questions from the screen, I could tell by movement of her eyes and the monotonic voice. It was weird. May be she had some sort of a real time "interview assistant" app.Edit: There you gohttps://interviewhammer.com/

author: tooki
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 20, 2025, 11:30:26 am
content: Quote from: booscrawl on July 20, 2025, 03:50:26 amNothing to do with race. It’s just that everything they do sounds like people I would not get along with. Even if the article had anonymized the names and had no pictures, that would be my conclusion.

author: mzzj
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 20, 2025, 08:28:22 pm
content: Quote from: Analog Kid on July 20, 2025, 12:34:38 amI don't know about AI but I have checked battery voltage on couple of cars also from cigarette-lighter socket and it has been enough accurate.New cars with start-stop system (some of them at least) on the other hand have DC-DC converter between battery and consumer electronics to keep voltage better in check so in those cigarette plug wouldnt give meaningfull reading.

author: Analog Kid
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 20, 2025, 08:36:49 pm
content: Quote from: mzzj on July 20, 2025, 08:28:22 pmMy point here was not to get dragged into the weeds over where to check battery voltage on an automobile (there's already a thread on that). I was poking @radiolistener because of his stubborn clinging to a certain POV in that thread. Nothing to do with the subject at hand, which is yet another egregious misuse of "AI".

author: radiolistener
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 20, 2025, 09:40:17 pm
content: At some point, the hiring process in many industries turned into a kind of strange ritual, where candidates are required to pass a series of tests involving abstract problems that often have little or nothing to do with the actual job. This created entire HR sub-industries and companies focused on training people to excel specifically at passing such tests and solving interview puzzles. The irony, of course, is that these candidates are often completely unprepared for real-world work.Even before AI became widespread, I saw this as a fundamentally flawed system - a sort of speculative bubble destined to collapse sooner or later. The rise of AI has simply accelerated this process. Now, AI tools can solve many of these interview puzzles in real time, rendering both extensive training and test-oriented preparation largely obsolete.This isn’t truly an AI problem - it’s the inevitable bursting of an artificially inflated market. AI just exposed how fragile and unsustainable the system was all along.I believe this was always understood, at least implicitly: those who invested time in training for these highly specific tasks were seen as having earned a "fair" advantage, even if that advantage had little relevance to actual job performance.Now, with AI, this perceived advantage has disappeared - almost any stupid person, regardless of background, can solve such tasks using AI assistance. From a practical hiring perspective, nothing has really changed: this skill was always irrelevant to real work, AI has simply made that irrelevance impossible to ignore. What was once considered a necessary hiring ritual is now clearly seen as obsolete.

author: Analog Kid
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 20, 2025, 09:46:01 pm
content: Quote from: radiolistener on July 20, 2025, 09:40:17 pmAre you aware that the statement you just made falls precisely into the category known as "sweeping generalizations"?It may be true, it may not be: in this case, there's really no way to tell.Are you trying to tell us that you've done an exhaustive survey ofeveryindustry that uses tests as part of their evaluation process when hiring people? Really?Or are you relying on someone else's comprehensive data set looking at the same thing? If so, can you give us a reference or two?Otherwise, you're pretty much just blowing smoke in our faces here, seemingly to defend the "AI" here for some strange reason.For one instance, we know that Google uses various tricky questions as part of its interview process, and the questions often have nothing whatever to do with whatever the applicant is expected to do if they're hired. But they're aimed at determining how good that person is at critical thinking, "thinking outside the box", coming up with imaginative or ingenious solutions to problems, things like that. Something that certainly seems to contradict your sweeping statement above.I would never argue that the hiring process used by various industries, overall, doesn't have severe flaws. However, unlike you, I don't claim to have any special knowledge here that allows me to make such a definitive statement. Perhaps you do, who knows?

author: radiolistener
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 20, 2025, 10:14:15 pm
content: I’m not claiming access to exclusive industry-wide data. What I’m describing is something many professionals have observed for years - long before AI entered the picture.An entire industry grew around training candidates specifically to pass standardized tests and solve certain types of interview puzzles. These preparation courses didn’t enhance actual job skills, they simply taught people how to "play the game" and produce the answers employers wanted. Whether such tests really measure critical thinking or creativity is, at the very least, debatable. In practice, companies often ended up hiring people who were simply good at passing tests, but not necessarily good at doing the job.That’s why I argue this process became more of a ritual - real skills took a back seat to the ability to perform well in a narrowly defined assessment format. AI hasn’t created this problem - it just exposed it more clearly.It’s like training a group of monkeys to quickly and efficiently peel a banana, and then using banana-peeling speed as a measure of their creativity and problem-solving ability. Naturally, the trained monkeys will outperform those who rely on instinct and have never practiced this specific task.But does that really mean the trained monkeys are more creative or possess better thinking skills? Or does it simply reflect the fact that they’ve been taught to optimize one narrow, repetitive task?Before the advent of abacus and calculators, the ability to perform complex mental arithmetic was likely considered a valuable skill when hiring. Today, however, few employers would see such a skill as significant, they are more interested in practical competencies directly relevant to the job, while calculations are handled by readily available tools.From the perspective of university education, little has fundamentally changed. The ability to solve problems that AI can now handle has simply lost much of its value. However, the ability to solve problems beyond the reach of AI remains just as valuable as before.Importantly, academic assessment isn’t strictly about absolute knowledge. Grades often reflect how well a student can solve problems relative to their peers. There’s typically a baseline of problems most students can solve, and an upper threshold of difficulty where perhaps only a few students succeed. Grades are distributed within that range.As technology evolves, the definition of that difficulty range shifts. The emergence of AI is one such transformative factor: by making certain problems easily solvable for most students, AI effectively lowers the perceived difficulty of those tasks. This, in turn, pushes the assessment focus toward more complex or creative challenges - areas where human capability still offers a meaningful distinction.

author: Analog Kid
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 20, 2025, 10:40:08 pm
content: If what you wrote was a Wikipedia article, it would be immediately slapped with a big ol' "This article needs citations for verification" tag.

author: radiolistener
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 20, 2025, 11:04:03 pm
content: Fair point. Though for context, during my university studies I conducted mathematical evaluations of the adequacy of various testing methods, based on statistical analysis of their outcomes. My academic advisor expected me to continue this research at the postgraduate level.After graduation, however, I moved away from academia due to limited practical application and financial prospects, choosing to work in industry instead. So my observations come from a combination of that early research background and practical experience, rather than from casual opinions or secondary sources.From a scientific perspective on test design methodology, if the majority of students easily solve a test question, it does not necessarily reflect their high level of knowledge or skills. Rather, it indicates that the test item is of poor quality and should be rejected, as it fails to effectively differentiate between different levels of student competence.The same logic applies when considering AI. If a test problem can be reliably solved by an AI tool, this indicates that the problem itself has lost its value as an assessment metric. The purpose of a test question is to differentiate between candidates based on their individual competencies, not their ability to apply generic, widely accessible tools.If a problem can now be solved effortlessly using AI, continuing to use it as a filtering mechanism makes little sense. You’re no longer assessing a candidate’s skills - you’re merely checking whether they know how to ask AI for help. In that case,it’s the test itself that should be discarded or redesigned, not the candidates penalized for using available tools.Ultimately, searching for candidates who can solve problems that AI can easily handle is pointless. The ability to solve such problems no longer represents meaningful skill or expertise - it simply reflects access to common technology.

author: Siwastaja
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 21, 2025, 05:19:07 am
content: Quote from: Analog Kid on July 20, 2025, 09:46:01 pmThen again, those industries/companies/hiring agencies that do not play stupid games like this would also be completely immune to this sort of AI, so radiolistener's point is fair.