If the writing test stated Do Not Use AI ...

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Twenty years from now everyone will laugh about our attempts to prohibit AI like it's cheating. It's like saying not to cheat by using the internet for research. Totally not related to the real world.

+1. You should want your candidates to leverage current technologies. Evaluate them on their final product, not how you think they got to it. Is it a good piece? Great! Who cares if AI was involved? Is it crap? Then don't hire them.

Man, I wish my workplace was as simple as yours!

You know how all political campaign speeches sound exactly the same? They always have to some degree, but it's gotten way worse with AI. So much so that even foreign politicians are starting to sound like American politicians. Our business relies on hitting different. AI by definition can't do that. And frankly, someone who thinks it's appropriate to use AI in this professional context shouldn't be here. They have misunderstood the role for which we're hiring.

If that’s the case, then you would just reject the AI candidates because the writing was subpar.

I think that’s what we are pointing out…if you thought somebody wrote a great piece and then found that it was written by AI, then perhaps that candidate is the most advanced AI user who truly knows how to use it.

[Anonymous]

Yes, please tell them why. Feedback in hiring process always helpful!

[Anonymous]

Ai detection sucks but I know it very well. I continued to interview the candidates that used it. One fell completely apart and didn't even know what AI wrote

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Checkers can still be wrong--and I love the em dash.

I love the Oxford comma. That's another marker.

Why, OP, did you prohibit AI use? What were you trying to see?

Because success here relies heavily on the ability to stand out of the crowd. LLM product is by definition average. Also, this is a leadership role, and a lazy person who uses AI to deliver minimum viable product will get eaten alive by our staff.

It sounds like you want to use a tool (maybe an AI tool) to do your job of assessing what stands out?? If you can't read writing samples and identify which will best achieve your company's goals, that seems like a priority issue to tackle before hiring anyone.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Checkers can still be wrong--and I love the em dash.

I love the Oxford comma. That's another marker.

Why, OP, did you prohibit AI use? What were you trying to see?

You think an Oxford comma indicates AI usage? My supervisor requires us to us them in documents so now its embedded for me to use them.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Checkers can still be wrong--and I love the em dash.

I love the Oxford comma. That's another marker.

Why, OP, did you prohibit AI use? What were you trying to see?

You think an Oxford comma indicates AI usage? My supervisor requires us to us them in documents so now its embedded for me to use them.

My boss requires me to put punctuation outside "quotation marks". Like that. Because he thinks he's European.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Twenty years from now everyone will laugh about our attempts to prohibit AI like it's cheating. It's like saying not to cheat by using the internet for research. Totally not related to the real world.

+1. You should want your candidates to leverage current technologies. Evaluate them on their final product, not how you think they got to it. Is it a good piece? Great! Who cares if AI was involved? Is it crap? Then don't hire them.

Except didn't one of our big government contractors have to repay the Australian government for submitting an AI generated product that was written like an illiterate person and contained gross and obvious factual errors, quoted non existent sources, and attributed information to real experts from Australia who never wrote or said the things in the AI created report?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:... and half the candidates used AI anyway (according to three different checkers), how would you approach this? We have a very strong set of candidates, for a writing-heavy role, so it's no issue for us to decline those candidates who used AI on the writing test. But should I tell them that's why they won't be moving forward in the process? I feel like they should know they're getting caught and not do it again.

I'm struggling to understand why any business would tell candidates to not use AI on a test for a writing-heavy role? AI is a tool that's here to stay. I'm a professional, published writer and use AI now -- it's like a built-in editor that helps me streamline, double-checks grammar, etc. It's very useful. Frankly, if I were applying for jobs and one had this sort of aversion to AI, I would remove my name from consideration.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Checkers can still be wrong--and I love the em dash.

I love the Oxford comma. That's another marker.

Why, OP, did you prohibit AI use? What were you trying to see?

Because success here relies heavily on the ability to stand out of the crowd. LLM product is by definition average. Also, this is a leadership role, and a lazy person who uses AI to deliver minimum viable product will get eaten alive by our staff.

Wow, you're a bunch of luddites.

Our leaders all know how to use AI very effectively.

You're wildly behind the times.

[Anonymous]

PP here. For example, I'm assuming that the writing you want done is content marketing, right? Do you understand how optimization of CM is changing rapidly? Only a year ago, SEO (search engine optimization) was a critical skill. It's already being replaced by GEO (generative engine optimization).

Trust me on this -- you want writers who know HOW to use AI. Otherwise, you run the risk of falling further behind than you already are.

[Anonymous]

I input something I published a while ago (eg before ai was a thing) and it flagged it as 30% AI, and even highlighted which sentences it thought was AI. I tried the "humanize this" button and it just dumbed the prose down to middle/high school level of writing. Then I ran the same thing through 3 different checkers and got 3 different results, from fully human to probably AI.