Only if they are being honest. Offer this as a 12 month temp contract with possibility of continuation. Offering a role as permanent but with unvoiced intent to let go, that's dishonest. Being honest is always a responsibility.
> There was discussion about how they thought candidates asking about compensation to be something of a negative signal
It's not an unusual way of thinking, but every time I see it, it seems bizarre to me. If the candidate was to propose any project once hired, I'm sure these folks would want them to think about costs and benefits.
This policy selects either for people unable to reflect on their life with the same wit they apply to work; or people who will front about their motivations. Both seem like poor outcomes.
Common pattern where a bright spark asks, 'why you all so complicated?'
Proceeds to assume we're dealing with a finite graph / set.
All the complication is needed to handle the fact that the state can be a random vector of real numbers in a possibly varying dimensional space. It's not jerking off on jargon for its own sake.
Sure, there are simple cases - doesn't make the general case 'bullshit'.
It's not so hard. One of the interview stages I did somewhere well known used this.
Here's the neural net model your colleague sent you. They say it's meant to do ABC, but they found limitation XYZ. What is going on? What changes would you suggest and why?
Was actually a decent combined knowledge + code question.
It's a bad question. What is actually being tested here is whether the candidate can reel off an 'acceptable' motivation. Whether it is their motivation or not. This is asking questions that incentivize disingenuous answers (boo) and then reacting with pikachu shock when the obvious outcome happens.
I used to work for a historical records org. As of 10 years back, OCR was getting humans to transcribe such work. So whatever the limitations of genai, my prior is against there being a perfectly good old fashioned OCR solution to the 'obscure hisotrical handwriting' problem.
It's totally possible to slog through a chapter of a maths text and feel like we got it. But it turns out our 'understanding' was a facade. We can't apply the concepts in a new situation. Exposing ourselves to feedback via problem sets reveals this.