It made you feel very comfortable and put that as the priority. It was a coding challenge and it was reviewed with a panel of developers after. Then you would split into groups and have individual interviews.

I applied through the normal process, completed the coding assessment, and passed it. After that, Intuit used an outsourced recruiting team, Uptime Crew, for the screening round. The recruiter interview started well, covering my frontend tech stack, background, fit for the role, motivation for applying, and behavioral questions such as “tell me about a time.” However, after a while, a large part of the discussion became heavily focused on AI-related questions, and that is where the interview started to feel repetitive and poorly grounded. Unfortunately, the recruiter came across as unprepared and non-technical. She seemed to be reading questions from a script rather than actually understanding the answers or engaging in a meaningful conversation. Even when I tried to explain things in both technical terms and simpler layman terms, she did not seem interested in understanding and instead appeared focused only on moving to the next question. She kept asking questions such as what AI tools I use for development, how I prompt AI, and what happens if AI-generated code fails in production. The problem was not the topic itself, since I am comfortable discussing AI usage in development and actually enjoy those conversations. The issue was that the questioning showed very little understanding of how real engineering workflows work. Code does not go directly to production without testing, code reviews, and staging. Yet the questions were framed in a way that ignored those basic realities and repeatedly assumed that AI-written code would directly create production failures. There were more such questions on AI token exhaustion and similar that felt especially illogical and disconnected from practical software development. I still answered every question clearly and to the best of my ability, but it was frustrating to be evaluated by someone who seemed to be parroting a script rather than meaningfully assessing candidate experience, technical judgment, or problem-solving ability. What made the experience worse was that I was eventually ghosted afterward and then rejected.