Since AI assistants make it easy for candidates to complete take-home coding exercises, simply evaluating the final product is no longer an effective screening method. The new best practice is to require candidates to build with AI and then explain their thought process, revealing their true engineering and problem-solving skills.
Related Insights
With AI automating routine coding, the value of junior developers as inexpensive labor for simple tasks is diminishing. Companies will now hire juniors based on their creative problem-solving abilities and learning mindset, as they transition from being 'coders' to 'problem solvers who talk to computers.'
Using AI to code doesn't mean sacrificing craftsmanship. It shifts the craftsman's role from writing every line to being a director with a strong vision. The key is measuring the AI's output against that vision and ensuring each piece fits the larger puzzle correctly, not just functionally.
In an era where AI can assist with coding challenges, 10X's solution is to make their take-home assignments exceptionally difficult. This approach immediately filters out 50% of candidates who don't even respond, allowing for a much faster and more focused interview process for the elite few who pass.
AI tools are automating code generation, reducing the time developers spend writing it. Consequently, the primary skill shifts to carefully reviewing and verifying the AI-generated code for correctness and security. This means a developer's time is now spent more on review and architecture than on implementation.
Dr. Fei-Fei Li states she won't hire any software engineer who doesn't embrace AI collaborative tools. This isn't about the tools' perfection, but what their adoption signals: a candidate's open-mindedness, ability to grow with new toolkits, and potential to "superpower" their own work.
The process of struggling with and solving hard problems is what builds engineering skill. Constantly available AI assistants act like a "slot machine for answers," removing this productive struggle. This encourages "vibe coding" and may prevent engineers from developing deep problem-solving expertise.
Unlike testing simpler tools, the best way to evaluate a professional-grade AI coding agent is to apply it to your most difficult, real-world problems. Don't dumb down the task; use it on a complex bug or a massive, imperfect codebase to see its true reasoning and problem-solving capabilities.
To ensure comprehension of AI-generated code, developer Terry Lynn created a "rubber duck" rule in his AI tool. This prompts the AI to explain code sections and even create pop quizzes about specific functions. This turns the development process into an active learning tool, ensuring he deeply understands the code he's shipping.
As AI generates more code, the core engineering task evolves from writing to reviewing. Developers will spend significantly more time evaluating AI-generated code for correctness, style, and reliability, fundamentally changing daily workflows and skill requirements.
Traditional hiring assessments that ban modern tools are obsolete. A better approach is to give candidates access to AI tools and ask them to complete a complex task in an hour. This tests their ability to leverage technology for productivity, not their ability to memorize information.
