I haven't said anything about use of AI during the interview. However, the difference between using an AI tool like Claude or Cursor to help you reason about and develop a solution to a problem, and using something like ParakeetAI to listen to your call and provide you a script to speak is huge - it completely removes the thinking from the interaction. You can tell by how the candidate doesn't pause to contemplate the question, and from the overly polished answers delivered.

Since I'm the hiring manager, I'm looking for someone who is being genuine in the interview, and the AI cheaterware is a bridge too far, especially since it wasn't intended to be deeply technical - why cheat on a behavioral screen? You AI'd your way into the reject pile and made fool of yourself in the process.

Are you asking pretty standard questions? It's possible they prepared for what they're likely to be asked ahead of time and have scripts to help them not forget.

I've done that before A.I., gone through lists of interview questions on a Google Search (or what I remembered being asked in previous interviews) and thought about how to answer them with the benefit of time to think about it, and even wrote it out so I wouldn't forget. I might only take a brief moment to scroll to the corresponding question (or close enough to that question) and answer (some people might prepare so much they can just respond instantly and not refer to something they prewrote, too).

If I don't do this, I will forget, and will stumble and awkwardly pause in the interview (I still do this sometimes, I don't always prepare that much for interviews, it can be a pain and I might not be given enough time to do it).

The preparation is not unlike a politician or a talk show guest (or especially a comedian) when they go to an interview. Have stories and talking points preplanned, and make sure they go into them and how to say it.

Using A.I. might be the more likely scenario nowadays, but are we really going to assume that people who can give a good and confident answer must be terrible candidates now? That used to be considered a positive thing in interviews (granted, I don't always come across as well polished myself, so I may benefit if less polished becomes what's desired now).

I only end up with absurd questions if I am nearly positive the candidate is using one of these tools. I was proven right too - I asked a candidate if he'd ever chopped down a tree with an axe. He said no immediately, and then proceeded to give me a solid woodsmans explanation for how to do just that. I stand by what I did.

I guess my question to you would be: does it matter if they're using AI? I don't think anyone in 2026 would criticize a candidate for using a calculator, and Googling syntax and so on hasn't been forbidden in any interview I've had in over 10 years. AI is just another tool, an increasingly ubiquitous one.

Why play games? Just say "Are you using AI to answer these questions? It's OK if you are, but that will change the types of questions I ask." And honestly, maybe that just reveals that we've been asking the wrong questions all along.

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.

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

DNS seems broken

I don't think OP has even gotten the chance to write any bugs - hence the post.

1. Being informed about what the top level company goals are as well as department context and goals. If you can't draw a straight-ish line between what you're working on and those goals, it's probably not aligned. Make sure you have a defined and prioritized backlog of projects so that when you have the time/resources, you can easily pluck the next one off of the stack.

2. Repeating myself over and over and over (typically ~7 times) to get a message out to the team/org. Even smart people act dumb sometimes, and don't listen/read when they should. It feels like babysitting, sometimes.

3. Books, blogs, industry friends, and some mentors. I have found it difficult to make external mentor friends, but still working on it.

4. It's never about the tools. Jira sucks, slack sucks, and so do most tools. Make sure you keep your workflow simple and make it transparent, however you do it, so that not only can YOU see what's going on, you can confidently share it with others (see? THIS is why your feature isnt being worked on right now, etc.)

> 2. Repeating myself over and over and over (typically ~7 times) to get a message out to the team/org. Even smart people act dumb sometimes, and don't listen/read when they should. It feels like babysitting, sometimes.

This is often a sign of there being too many channels of communication or authoritative sources of information, and/or of lots of low-value information being sent out over those channels. Unfortunately, that's not always something one manager in an organization can fix, as it may be cultural or organizational-structural.

How many hours a week do you spend working?

To do my role properly without additional hires to support me? I'd probably need 50-60. However, at the moment they are paying me for 40 so I'm working 40. Phone notifications off, no email response after hours, etc.

Not fizzling yet...more than 1 year in...

/me NEEDS MORE FIZZLE

Thanks for the reply! How do you communicate your state across the various groups? What routines/rituals do you use religiously?