After Interviewing Several Companies, I Found the People Who Least Understand “AI Implementation” Are Often the Interviewers
Too Many Cognitive Gaps in AI Job Interviews
This article takes a hard look at bizarre realities in AI hiring, breaking down the root causes — from the disconnect between algorithms and product to the inertia of outdated experience.
It also shares key signals to identify trustworthy teams, so whether you’re an AI PM or a job seeker, you can gauge the industry’s “waterline” and avoid those still using old maps to find a new continent.
---
My Ongoing Interview Ritual
Every six months, I make myself interview at a few companies — not to change jobs, but for calibration:
- Check the market pulse: Which models are big companies competing on?
- Spot emerging PMF: What have startups just discovered?
- Evaluate the talent “waterline”: Using interviewer quality as an industry gauge.
But recently, after several interviews, I felt genuine discomfort.
Many interviewers weren’t clueless about product — they were force-fitting last-generation internet logic onto the unique reality of AI products.
They wanted to build rockets using manuals for tightening screws.
---
Case 1 — The Algorithm Interviewer Obsessed with SOTA
Scenario: Unicorn building vertical large models, interviewer was algorithm team lead.
Expectation: A deep discussion on technical boundaries.
Reality: A borderline confrontational focus on beating GPT‑5 or topping benchmarks:
> “If GPT‑5 can already do X, why can’t we surpass it in our domain?”
> “Retention is poor — isn’t that just because your product team hasn’t dug enough into scenarios?”
My attempt: Explain that high benchmark ≠ usable UX.
Raised points like latency breaking user flow and long-context decay hurting business logic.
Interruption:
> “Those are engineering optimizations. PMs should focus on maximizing the model’s upper bound.”
Core Problem:
Model-centric thinking — seeing the model itself as the product, undervaluing real-world delivery.
Users don’t care about parameter counts; they care about accuracy, stability, and speed.
Without resolving uncontrollability vs. cost, SOTA remains a lab toy.
---
Case 2 — The Product Director Managing Uncertainty with Jira
Scenario: Legacy SaaS pivoting to AI, interviewer was a traditional software product director.
The “classic” ask:
> “Month one: boost accuracy to 90%. Month two: fix all hallucinations. Month three: launch auto-execution Agents.”
Challenge back:
Asked for definition of “all hallucinations” and dataset coverage.
Response:
> “AI people lack project management capability. Before, schedule = delivery. No excuses.”
Core Problem:
Applying deterministic management to probabilistic products.
In LLMs, bad cases can be suppressed but not eliminated.
Red Flag:
Leaders who demand “100% hallucination elimination” or “weekly model boosts” will inevitably blame-shift when reality hits.
---
Case 3 — The Business VP Chasing Buzzword Agents
Scenario: Innovation division at a major tech, VP drops state-of-the-art jargon: Agent, Multi-modal, Chain-of-Thought.
My example:
To keep Agents on track in multi-turn dialogues, we added a deterministic state machine outside the Prompt — heavy, but ensured usability.
VP reaction:
> “Too heavy. Trust emergence, Scaling Law. If GPT‑5 can’t do it now, it will later.”
Core Problem:
Equating engineering rigor with being outdated.
Ignoring exponential fragility of Agents in real-world flows hurts user trust.
Joining this mindset = boarding a rocket destined to explode.
---
Why Even Top Talent Can Be “Shallow” in AI Interviews
Key reasons:
- Algorithm–Product Disconnection
- Algorithm teams chase leaderboard scores.
- Product teams draw wireframes.
- Missing translators who understand both deep tech and user psychology.
- Path Dependence Inertia
- Mobile internet logic (brute force, agile delivery) is ingrained.
- Applied to AI, it collides with the unpredictability of LLMs.
---
How to Spot Teams That Truly “Get It”
In interviews, value those who:
- Talk Boundaries, Not Perfection
- Ask about fallback strategies when models fail.
- Talk Data Loops, Not Parameters
- Care about user feedback cycles, ongoing fine-tuning.
- Focus on Cost–Value Balance
- Weigh ROI, small model distillation, or traditional NLP alternatives.
True AI professionalism = deep insight into limitations + skill to optimize within constraints.
---
Interview Tip — It’s a Two-Way Choice
If they’re still using old maps for new continents, politely walk away.
The right leader is far more important than sheer effort in the AI race.
---
Tool Spotlight — AiToEarn
In the fast-evolving AI world, tools like AiToEarn官网 help bridge technical rigor and business scalability.
AiToEarn is:
- Open-source and global
- Enables creators to generate, publish, and earn across multiple platforms
- (Douyin, Kwai, WeChat, Bilibili, Xiaohongshu, Facebook, Instagram, LinkedIn, Threads, YouTube, Pinterest, X/Twitter)
- Integrates AI content generation, cross-platform publishing, analytics, and model ranking (AI模型排名)
For teams balancing emergence with engineering safeguards, such integrated tools turn cautious design into sustainable growth.
---
Bottom line: Choose leaders who understand both AI’s promise and its constraints, and equip yourself — or your team — with the right tools to deliver value consistently.
