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.
Anonymous wrote:OP, respectfully, you are not going about this job search in a productive way. You should evaluate the writing for what you received. It doesn’t matter if an alien beamed down and gave it to this person. if the person submitted it thinking it was their best effort then that is what should be evaluated.
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.
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?
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.
Anonymous wrote:Call in your too candidates and give them a writing test done in person. Problem solved.
Anonymous wrote:This is not a job for someone who's good at prompts. Sure, there are jobs for prompt-writers, but this is a job for an actual writer. We need to stand out in a field where all our competition sounds the same.
Yes, the checkers can be wrong, but that isn't a reason to stop using them, it's a reason to do multiple checks and to assess the results with a critical eye. So if Candidate A was 100% AI across all tools, only an idiot would say "but but but the checkers could be wrong!" Same with Candidate B, who was 0% AI across all tools. Why on earth would I look at that and say "hmmm this reads like a human to me and to the tools, but the checkers could be wrong!" Candidate C, now... Candidate C might have 10% on one tool, 0% on another tool, and 15% on the last tool. I'll assume that candidate C used an AI for formatting or similar, and if their other criteria were strong, not dismiss them automatically.