There is a clear correlation between the rise in LLM use and the volume of PRs and bug reports. Unfortunately, this has predominately increased the volume of submissions and not the overall quality. My view of the security issues reported, many are clearly LLM generated and at face value don't seem completely invalid, so they must be investigated. There was a recent Django blog post about this [1].

The fellows and other volunteers are spending a much greater amount of time handling the increased volume.

[1] https://www.djangoproject.com/weblog/2026/feb/04/recent-tren...

Any take home test trivial enough to complete in under 20 minutes could be completed by an AI. The only signal you get from a take home test is whether or not they can submit answers. It doesn't let you know if the candidate is capable of passing the test unassisted.

Take home tests were never a worthwhile signal. Pre-AI, people would search for solutions or have another person complete it.

Cheating is possible in the abstract, but I found a tight correlation between interview and take-home performance. For whatever reason, candidates didn't seem to cheat much.

The AI point is worth diving into a little. This was a year ago, so SOTA was worse, but I didn't find it terribly hard to write questions AI couldn't solve, whose answers you couldn't search for, and which good candidates could solve. The test was a few of those questions and a few which were easier to cheat, and almost nobody had good scores on just the cheatable section.

I don't think that moat will exist indefinitely, but today's AI just isn't very good at a lot of incredibly basic tasks unless the operator has enough outside knowledge to guide it in the right direction (and if a candidate did that I mostly wouldn't care because, by definition, they had the knowledge I was looking for). I use AI a lot, it's great at a lot of things, some even quite complicated, but it was weaknesses, and those are pretty easy to exploit.

Your description of the test and your replies to questions indicate you've come up with a pretty great assessment for the role(s) you hire for. Especially where you mentioned:

> The test was a few of those questions and a few which were easier to cheat, and almost nobody had good scores on just the cheatable section

I also like how you allow/encourage self-assessment, where if a candidate can't do the test in ~20 minutes under zero pressure, they probably won't be a good fit in the role itself.

Major interview platforms all can identify AI usage, and record the interview for humans to review later.

Employers can, with a somewhat high (?) degree of certainty, weed out candidates using AI.

I didn't say creating isn't illegal. I said I think it probably shouldn't be illegal.

Any crime that doesn't cause victims is just another way for an oppressive collectivist state to further control their citizens. If you are not harming anyone (like when creating but not sharing these pictures) then it simply shouldn't be a crime. Otherwise, what are you actually punishing? Thoughtcrimes?

Why? To avoid using Google search. It's been an inferior search product for years. Last time I used the default launcher on a pixel, I couldn't change it to a better search product, so I changed launcher.

Most hobby and small business sites can easily run on a $5-10/mo VPS. If you need a bit more, hetzner server auctions should suffice. It's always safer to use a fixed cost service, instead of the cloud hosts that don't let you set a hard quota on spend.

I've noticed a pattern in the security reports for a project I'm involved in. After a CVE is released, for the next month or so there will likely be additional reports targeting the same (or similar) areas of the framework. There is definitely a competitive spirit amongst security researchers as they try to get more CVEs credited to them (and potentially bounties).

He's an addict. If he's not removed, this will keep happening.

Revoking visas and deporting University students and professors.

correct, their vote says "I'm okay with everything this candidate says they'll do."

You can't cherry pick policies from a candidate and pretend your vote is not culpable for all the harm it inflicts.

Thank you for sharing the perspective of some doctors. You'll likely get down votes because it comes across as condescending and elitist.

I didn't downvote because I think diverse perspective is important, but the OP's comment is condescending and elitist: it declares that US doctors and the system they operate within is superior to the doctors and medical systems of every other country. This is clearly false.