I worked in this field back in 2022, before AI-assisted development became common. Now I'm wondering how companies handle tools such as coding assistants during interviews. Are candidates generally expected to work entirely unaided, or are some employers allowing—or even encouraging—AI use to reflect how the job is actually performed?
5 Answers
The trend seems to be toward hybrid interviews. Some companies have unaided coding rounds, some ask directly about AI-assisted development, and others permit tools throughout the assessment. Take-home assignments may allow AI, followed by a live session where you make changes and explain the system to prove you understand what you submitted.
In some fields, AI use is still an automatic disqualification because the interview is meant to test your own technical ability. The reasoning is that if you can’t solve or explain the problem yourself, you may not be ready to handle the work independently.
There isn’t a universal rule. Some companies prohibit AI and want to evaluate unaided fundamentals, while others expect candidates to use modern tools. It often depends on seniority: junior candidates may need to demonstrate that they understand the basics, whereas experienced developers are also judged on their ability to use tools effectively without losing technical judgment.
For roles involving AI agents or automation, using these tools can actually be a plus. Employers may focus less on memorizing syntax and more on system design, software-development practices, deployment, debugging, and knowing when the tool’s output is wrong. Still, AI doesn’t replace core engineering knowledge, so candidates should be prepared to reason and code without it unless the employer explicitly says otherwise.
A common compromise is to ban AI during one part of the process and allow it during another. That lets interviewers assess fundamentals while also seeing how a candidate works with AI in realistic conditions. If it’s allowed, expect detailed questions about design choices, prompts, testing, debugging, refactoring, and whether you actually understand the generated code.
That seems more useful than pretending developers never use outside help. The important part is whether the candidate can evaluate the output and explain the decisions behind it.