@faiford: A programmer with an annual salary of $385,000, accustomed to vibe coding, refused to use Claude Code during an interview at top quant firm Jane Street, and was immediately disqualified. The raw 32-minute live coding interview footage was released unedited, truthfully recording everything from live coding, Q&A, to tool compatibility issues.
Summary
A programmer earning $385,000 per year failed his interview at Jane Street for refusing to use Claude Code, reflecting that AI tools have become industry entry standards. On Polymarket, there are bets on the penetration speed of AI tools.
View Cached Full Text
Cached at: 05/25/26, 10:49 AM
A programmer earning an annual salary of 385,000 RMB, accustomed to “vibe coding,” refused to use Claude Code during an interview at top quant firm Jane Street, and was immediately eliminated.
The unedited 32-minute live coding interview video has been released to the public — raw, no cuts — documenting everything from writing code on the spot, Q&A interactions, to tool compatibility issues.
Industry hiring rules are quietly shifting: tool configuration has become a key screening criterion. Claude Code is now the new industry entry standard, and Polymarket already has heavy betting volume on how fast such AI tools will penetrate the market.
In the high-frequency trading track, the quality of tools an individual uses directly determines overall competitiveness.
Save this interview video and watch it in full at your leisure for reference. #polymarket
Similar Articles
@MadeshiaPramod: Jane Street rejected this $385,000-a-year vibe coder because he refused to use Claude Code. During the interview for a Tier-1 fund, a 32-minute vibe coding session was livestreamed. You can see the whole process: live coding, pressure questions, the moment they realized his tech stack didn't match theirs…
Jane Street rejected a highly paid programmer who refused to use Claude Code during an interview for a Tier-1 fund, highlighting the increasing trend of screening candidates based on their proficiency with specific AI coding tools.
@mubeitech: Kicked out of an Ivy League school, Roy Lee landed $5 M in 24 h. He cracked Silicon Valley’s playbook with Interview Coder—software built to cheat in tech interviews—and proved it by breezing through an Amazon internship round, then posted the whole stunt online.
Roy Lee raised $5 million in 24 hours for Interview Coder, a tool engineered to cheat in coding interviews, after demonstrating it by passing an Amazon internship interview and publishing the recording.
@interjc: Programmer jobs are booming again. Many bosses might be doing the math: an unlimited Claude subscription is way too expensive, might as well hire a human.
The tweet points out that although some believe AI will replace programmers, data shows demand for software engineers has actually surged. This may be because the cost of using AI (like Claude) is too high, prompting companies to prefer hiring human programmers.
@Phoenixyin13: DeepSeek is getting a bit carried away in the talent war. In 2026, AI talent is extremely scarce, especially compound talents like Li Bojie who have both top conference papers and engineering experience at a major company like Huawei. If I were the interviewer, I would treat them like treasure. Yet it ended up like this – a typical case of immature processes combined with uneven interviewer quality. In the current AI circle, …
Criticizes DeepSeek's improper interview process, missing out on compound AI talent like Li Bojie, reflecting issues in corporate recruitment processes amid the current AI talent war.
@sodawhite_dev: https://x.com/sodawhite_dev/status/2067413032544940062
The article analyzes Anthropic's 400,000-session report on Claude Code, pointing out that AI programming tools are changing the division of labor between humans and AI. Domain knowledge is more important than coding ability. Expert users can enable AI to perform more complex tasks, while verification and task decomposition capabilities become core competitive advantages.