I'd bet that still to this day, most interview questions test recall (of XYZ) and recall is what LLMs are best at. "Explain the difference between X and Y" or "what would you do in scenario Z" are search queries now. A lot more streamlined than individual google searches people would patch together from their search journey...

If I'd ever be doing a hiring spree, I'd give them a real problem. Put them in a position to think out loud. Not "what's the answer" but "walk me through how you'd approach this." Probe the reasoning. When they hit a fork, ask why they'd go left instead of right. Ask about tradeoffs they see. The best/real candidates will naturally say "I'd need to know more about X before deciding" because they're actually thinking through it.

IMO acknowledging the lack of information (without coming from a place of uninformed/non-experienced) almost impossible to fake with an overlay. LLMs always have an answer. Good engineers know when they don't.

Just to clarify - i should have said this originally - it's not about the use of Cursor or Claude at all. I mean that they were using something that was listening to the conversation, and then automatically spitting out something for the candidate to say. I'm all for the tools and yes, it's an expectation that you will be not just familiar with, but a power user of tools like Cursor and Claude. I object only to what seems like "cheatware" for the whole process of the interview.

Candidates are also not themselves in these scenarios - IRL interviews show that immediately.

I'll go the opposite direction: if your Sr Release Engineer will use AI assistants (Claude Code, etc) on the job, let them use it in the interview.

The best interviews test critical thinking and problem-solving, not recall. AI makes generating solutions easier, but it also makes validating those solutions harder. That validation skill is what _actually_ matters now. Focus on that. "How do you validate that your solution is correct?" is a great next question.

I also don't think it's wrong to say, "I know you're using an AI tool, that's fine, but I'd like you to answer _this_ question without it. I'm trying to determine whether you can validate whether an AI is giving you good information."

But today? The toothpaste is out of the tube, my friend. AI assistants are ubiquitous in 2026. Pretending otherwise isn't a strategy that's going to lead you to success. Instead, it's just filtering out candidates who've adapted to modern tooling. And isn't the ability to adapt to change one of the best qualities of an engineer?

My advice: learn to interview people who use AI well. You'll hire someone who knows how to leverage it effectively, rather than actively selecting against people who do.

(And if you're asking "absurd questions" to catch AI users, you're just wasting everyone's time. Ask real problems and evaluate how they approach solutions, with or without assistance.)

Be polite. Answer questions. Conclude the interview. Reject the candidate.

To be clear, I have started asking absurd questions, and seeing what the reaction is. Those using AI assistants never balk at these.

I have noticed this too. One thing that helps is asking follow-up questions that go deeper into their past decisions or tradeoffs — it is much harder to fake real experience there. You can usually tell pretty quickly who actually understands vs who is just reading.

Maybe the problem goes deeper than just using an AI assistant, so candidates don’t really have a choice anymore.

If I think this happening I'll ask them to close their eyes.

Honestly, just start asking them about the bugs you once introduced in prod. AI can’t replicate that panic.

"Tell me about a time you did XYZ at one of your previous jobs."

In person interviews

If that’s too expensive then maybe you should just have more AI agent adoption so you don’t need to hire third rate developers.

Are you telling them upfront that AI usage is forbidden? If not it's fair game.