I've been on both sides of the data engineering hiring table for years. I've written interview loops, failed interview loops, and watched candidates ace screens that told me absolutely nothing about whether they could debug a silent data loss bug at 2am. The signal was always thin. Now it's basically noise.
Here's the situation in 2026: 64% of companies ban AI in interviews. Candidates use it anyway. One company measured 80% of candidates using LLMs on take-home tests despite explicit prohibition. AI cheating on take-homes doubled from 15% to 35% between June and December 2025, and that number is accelerating. The traditional code screen; the thing that was supposed to separate "can do the job" from "can't do the job"; is dead. It just hasn't stopped twitching yet.
So if an AI can spit out a clean solution to a medium LC problem, what does asking that problem actually tell me about you? That you memorized something a machine produces on demand? I've been interviewing FAANG data engineers for years. The interview signal has always been questionable. Now it's gone.
64% Ban AI, 100% Can't Stop It
The Karat 2025-2026 AI Workforce Transformation Report surveyed 400 engineering leaders across the U.S., India, and China. The headline number: nearly two-thirds still prohibit AI use in interviews. But less than 30% have actually updated their assessments or retrained interviewers. That's not a policy. That's a legal compliance gesture stapled to a prayer.
The enforcement paradox is brutal. Modern cheating tools solve take-homes in 5 minutes. Invisible overlay tools render answers in candidates' IDEs while screen-capture sees nothing. AI detection? Same 800-word essay tested on five different detectors returned scores of 4%, 91%, 12%, 67%, and 38%. That's not detection; that's a random number generator.
The skill being tested (AI-free coding) is not the job. Engineers use AI daily. Testing without it measures neither job performance nor authentic ability. It measures anxiety tolerance.
Here's the hypocrisy that gets me: Amazon, Microsoft, Meta, and Google all require engineers to use AI daily in production code. Google has publicly acknowledged a significant portion of its codebase is AI-generated. Then they disqualify candidates for using the same tools in interviews. The Class of 2025 watched a generation get laid off, saw companies ship AI-generated code to production, and decided the "no AI" rule is a fiction they're not participating in. I can't say I blame them.
The policy chaos is something else. Amazon will fully disqualify you for AI use. Goldman Sachs bans ChatGPT. Anthropic banned AI in May 2025, walked it back in July, now allows it for resumes only. Meanwhile Meta, Shopify, and Canva explicitly encourage AI in coding rounds. You can go through three interview loops in parallel and face completely opposite rules in each one.
When Any LLM Can Pass Your Screen
Traditional code tests had exactly one value proposition: differentiation at scale. LLMs dissolved that advantage.
Codility achieves only a 0.47 correlation to job performance. That's barely better than a coin flip. Frontier models hit 95%+ on HumanEval, and the gap between top models is one point of meaningless noise. The benchmarks that companies used to calibrate difficulty are saturated. A medium LeetCode problem that used to filter out 60% of candidates now filters out nobody, because the candidates aren't solving it; their tools are.
71% of engineering leaders say AI is making it harder to assess technical skills. That number was probably 20-30% two years ago. The hiring process is in freefall and the people running it know it.
The really insidious part is what one HN commenter called "vibe coders." Candidates who are phenomenal at prompting AI to generate boilerplate but completely freeze when architecture gets complex, things break, or AI subtly hallucinates. Traditional screens can't distinguish between a strong engineer using AI as leverage and a weak engineer hiding behind it. And 59% of surveyed SVPs and CTOs now say weak engineers deliver net zero or negative value in the AI era. The stakes for getting this wrong have never been higher.
73% of those 400 engineering leaders say strong engineers are worth at least 3x their total compensation. So the ROI of correct hiring decisions just tripled while the signal quality went to zero. That's not a mismatch; that's a crisis.
US vs. China: The AI Interview Gap
While American companies debate whether to allow AI, Chinese tech firms already integrated it into hiring workflows. The Karat data shows Chinese companies are nearly 2x more likely to allow AI in live interviews and significantly less reliant on take-home projects and automated testing.
ByteDance is offering 5,000 positions with a 23% increase in R&D hiring. Alibaba posted 7,000+ roles, 60% AI-related. Baidu saw a 60% position increase with 90% of campus recruitment focused on AI. AI-related positions in China surged 12x year-on-year in early 2026. The US saw 78,000 tech layoffs in Q1 2026 while 275,000 AI job postings remained unfilled. That's not a skills gap; that's a structural mismatch dressed up as one.
The speed differential isn't just volume; it's philosophy. Chinese firms stopped pretending AI doesn't exist in interviews and started measuring whether candidates can use it effectively. US firms are still arguing about whether adaptation is allowed. By the time American companies reach consensus, Chinese firms will have hired an entire generation of engineers calibrated for AI-native work.
67% of startups already use AI in interviews while established companies cling to bans. If you're a data engineering candidate right now, the rules you're prepping for depend entirely on whether the company you're targeting was founded before or after 2015.
What Replaces the Code Test?
Nobody knows. That's the honest answer.
The industry is fragmenting. Some companies mandate live coding. Others double down on take-homes. Chinese firms embrace AI-in-session evaluation. Five major companies (Canva, Rippling, Meta, Shopify, Red Hat) now explicitly expect candidates to use Copilot, Cursor, and Claude during technical interviews. The shift isn't from "no AI" to "yes AI." It's from testing output to observing process. Can you prompt effectively? Do you critically evaluate AI suggestions? Do you know when the model is hallucinating?
The data engineering interview process was already broken before AI. Testing algorithms that engineers never use while ignoring skills they need daily. The actual job is debugging, not building. Less "write a DAG" and more "figure out why this pipeline silently dropped 2M rows last Tuesday." Nobody was interviewing for that skill anyway. AI just made the gap impossible to ignore.
Live, conversational interviews with integrity verification have become the only reliable alternative. 95% of candidates prefer assessments that mirror actual job scenarios over abstract puzzles. The best-performing teams aren't inventing new interview types; they're using existing formats with tighter rubrics, calibrated interviewers, and outcome-based feedback loops. For the architecture-style rounds, datadriven.io lets you work through the pipeline-design and data-modeling drills end-to-end instead of just reading about them; that kind of realistic simulation is where the industry is heading anyway.
The collaborative model is emerging: interviewers reading candidate cues, providing hints at the right time, jointly solving problems instead of input-output gotchas. It's more expensive. It requires trained interviewers. Less than 30% of firms have retrained their people to do this. The window to capture that signal advantage is narrow.
How to Prep When the Rules Keep Changing
You're a data engineering candidate in 2026. Company A wants classic dynamic programming with no AI. Company B wants you to build a feature using Cursor in 45 minutes. Company C hasn't decided yet and will tell you the rules 24 hours before your onsite. This isn't preparation guidance; it's a moving target.
Here's what I'd tell you (and what I've told myself through 20+ interview loops):
Concepts transfer across tools; tool knowledge doesn't transfer across concepts. That hasn't changed. Data modeling, query optimization, understanding why things break; these are tool-agnostic. They're also AI-resistant. An LLM can generate a Spark job. It can't tell you why your pipeline silently corrupted data for six months. It can't make the business context judgment calls that separate a senior from a staff engineer.
The interview is still a separate skill from the job. That was true before AI and it's true now. Treat prep like a job. But focus your prep on the things AI can't fake: system design reasoning, architecture tradeoffs, debugging methodology, and the ability to articulate why you made the decisions you made.
For live rounds where AI is allowed, practice using AI as a tool, not a crutch. The companies that permit it are watching how you use it, not whether you use it. Can you spot when it's wrong? Can you direct it toward the right solution? That's the new signal.
For companies that ban it, the mediums are still enough. Do 50. You'll be solid. But accept it for the arbitrary measuring stick it is, play the game, and spend more energy on the system design and career narrative rounds where AI provides zero advantage.
The one thing I know for certain: this isn't settling down anytime soon. The 35% of candidates using AI on take-homes is heading past 50% by late 2026. When the majority cheats, the honest minority faces inverse selection pressure. Companies will either redesign their loops or watch their hiring signal collapse entirely.
The tools change every 18 months. The problems don't. Schema drift, late-arriving data, upstream teams breaking contracts without telling you. These are eternal. Focus your prep there.
What's the weirdest interview format you've encountered in 2026? I'm genuinely curious whether anyone's seen something that actually works.
