Why OpenAI's interview is structurally different from FAANG
Per OpenAI's official interview guide (openai.com/interview-guide), IGotAnOffer's OpenAI SWE process guide 2025, and careerservices.fas.harvard.edu's OpenAI prep notes, OpenAI's interview is deliberately not the LeetCode-and-system-design pipeline most candidates prep for. The coding problems are real-world: debug an existing function, optimize for readability AND efficiency, refactor a small codebase. The bar is what you'd merge in code review, not whiteboard pseudocode.
Mission alignment is a real graded dimension. OpenAI explicitly states they want people who 'truly believe in the mission' — generic 'I think AI is cool' answers fail. You don't need to be an alignment researcher, but you need a grounded, specific perspective on AGI safety or beneficial AI development. The mission round isn't a soft fit check; it's where many otherwise-strong candidates lose the offer.
The past-project deep dive grades technical decision defense. Interviewers push hard on 'why X not Y' for every meaningful decision in your portfolio. Vague 'we just decided to do it that way' answers fail. Practice defending your portfolio decisions out loud before the interview — the dimension graded is your judgment, not the final answer.