> Languages are largely teachable, it's just syntax and keywords.

That's only true for a subset of programming languages, and it requires you to already know how to program in at least another language of the same family. Knowing Java will not help you with Haskell, but it will help you with C#.

I have to deal with students using AI to cheat on homework and exams, and I can't allow them to not even learn the basic concepts.

They could convince you with buzzwords, get hired, and then feed all problems to the AI until it reaches a point where the codebase is too big for the context, and then all their prompt “engineering” experience is basically useless.

That is the future I am trying to prevent.

Until the AI can code a full system like SAP, or an Operating System, or a Photoshop clone, by itself, we need some people in the loop, and the more knowledgeable the people, the better.

> That's only true for a subset of programming languages

That's true, but most of the industry is running on a subset of programming languages.

> That's only true for a subset of programming languages, and it requires you to already know how to program in at least another language of the same family. Knowing Java will not help you with Haskell, but it will help you with C#.

In this context, to a large extent it holds. Yeah. It’s probably more true of mainstream languages roughly related to each other, but in an interview, you’re not testing for knowledge of syntax and keywords. You’re trying to test for ability to build and problem solve.

I share your concern about prompt “engineers” who don’t understand the underlying codebase, language or system. But I don’t know what to do about it in the context of a technical interview.

I'm not arguing to let people cheat with AI. I'm saying asking people to write code in interviews is useless.