because mastering the use of these tools is an important skill like
Personal opinion.
if they show they are proficient with Copilot or whatever AI-based tool then it's also a valuable skill that you should have in mind when making your evaluation.
Again, this is your personal opinion. I don't even consider this being a skill. Even less than "knowing IDE bindings". What is important during interviews is verifying that someone is at least able to deliver, troubleshoot and will not be a nuisance to the rest of the team (loosely speaking). Can they use AI tools effectively to speed up development fixing undesirable artifacts? Good, but not something that matter to evaluate if someone should be hired or not. Also, if you want to evaluate how they solve problems, using AI during interview will introduce a huge amount of noise.
> because mastering the use of these tools is an important skill like
Personal opinion.
If those tools improve your productivity (it's highly dependent on what kind of job you're doing tbh) then it's not a matter of personal opinion: all things equal your employer will always value a more productive employee over a least productive one. Refusing for personal reasons to use a particular kind of tools that would increase your productivity is fine, but then don't be shocked if employers favor other candidates!
What is important during interviews is verifying that someone is at least able to deliver, troubleshoot
Yes, and if his use of such a tool improves his ability to do so, then it is actually an asset!
and will not be a nuisance to the rest of the team (loosely speaking)
Indeed, and I discussed that [0].
Can they use AI tools effectively to speed up development fixing undesirable artifacts? Good, but not something that matter to evaluate if someone should be hired or not.
It's not the use of AI itself that's worth being hired, but the overall productivity: if he is more productive with the AI tool than you without it, I'll hire him every time (assuming his non-tech skills are at least equivalent to yours, indeed).
Also, if you want to evaluate how they solve problems, using AI during interview will introduce a huge amount of noise.
In your job you either have problems that are out of reach of current LLM tech (very likely today, as they aren't that smart) in which case exhibiting such a problem to ask in interview should not be hard[1], or you don't and then you don't need to have employees capable of solving such problems.
Keep in mind that for most part your company and the job you're offering are very likely boring anyway, and you don't need to have a team of genius onboard. You just need decent human being that are able to cooperate, with just good enough technical abilities to solve the problem they are facing. And it's actually good if an IA can lower the technical skill cap, so that you can focus on the human part (we're clearly not there yet, as IMHO the current tech mostly improve the productivity of people solid enough to catch all the bullshit they spit out every other answer, hidden among helpful stuff).
[1] My interview was built around a fairly basic concurrent program problem, which is something we were using all the time and at the same time something ChatGPT 4 really struggles at without being heavily nudged, and when you make it correct its mistake it introduces bugs that where there before.
Comments
Personal opinion.
Again, this is your personal opinion. I don't even consider this being a skill. Even less than "knowing IDE bindings". What is important during interviews is verifying that someone is at least able to deliver, troubleshoot and will not be a nuisance to the rest of the team (loosely speaking). Can they use AI tools effectively to speed up development fixing undesirable artifacts? Good, but not something that matter to evaluate if someone should be hired or not. Also, if you want to evaluate how they solve problems, using AI during interview will introduce a huge amount of noise.
If those tools improve your productivity (it's highly dependent on what kind of job you're doing tbh) then it's not a matter of personal opinion: all things equal your employer will always value a more productive employee over a least productive one. Refusing for personal reasons to use a particular kind of tools that would increase your productivity is fine, but then don't be shocked if employers favor other candidates!
Yes, and if his use of such a tool improves his ability to do so, then it is actually an asset!
Indeed, and I discussed that [0].
It's not the use of AI itself that's worth being hired, but the overall productivity: if he is more productive with the AI tool than you without it, I'll hire him every time (assuming his non-tech skills are at least equivalent to yours, indeed).
In your job you either have problems that are out of reach of current LLM tech (very likely today, as they aren't that smart) in which case exhibiting such a problem to ask in interview should not be hard[1], or you don't and then you don't need to have employees capable of solving such problems.
Keep in mind that for most part your company and the job you're offering are very likely boring anyway, and you don't need to have a team of genius onboard. You just need decent human being that are able to cooperate, with just good enough technical abilities to solve the problem they are facing. And it's actually good if an IA can lower the technical skill cap, so that you can focus on the human part (we're clearly not there yet, as IMHO the current tech mostly improve the productivity of people solid enough to catch all the bullshit they spit out every other answer, hidden among helpful stuff).
[0] here https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40364095
[1] My interview was built around a fairly basic concurrent program problem, which is something we were using all the time and at the same time something ChatGPT 4 really struggles at without being heavily nudged, and when you make it correct its mistake it introduces bugs that where there before.