Applied for the Senior AI Engineer position. The company has a long and inconsistent interview process. Six rounds, with a request for a seventh after completion. tl;dr: Avoid interviewing for this company, your time is better spent elsewhere (do not get sucked into 8+ interviews just for them to say they aren't interested). They are not serious about your time or hiring. The interviews stop when you say stop. Interview breakdown: Recruiter call: The recruiter was professional and communicative throughout the entire process. Excellent experience at this stage. Initial assessment: Two timed coding problems and 20 multiple-choice questions (timed) advertised as AI/ML algorithm problems. In reality, these were standard leetcode-style questions and data-related multiple choice. The first problem was easy; the second would realistically take over 100 lines of code and could not be completed in the allotted 20 minutes. Hiring manager interview: Straightforward discussion of experience and basic ML knowledge. Fair overall. Applied ML interview: First part (coding) again promoted as an ML/AI challenge but mostly unrelated to either, and key clarifying questions were dismissed as “not important,” which made it feel unnecessarily obstructive. The walkthrough portion was somewhat relevant, but the interviewer seemed inexperienced (I believe he was new to the company) and closed to any solution that didn’t fit their mold of an answer. Communication was quite difficult. Next rounds: Multiple interviews repeated earlier questions about ML concepts and past experience. Two interviews were missed by the company and rescheduled later. These added little new information. VP interview: The same topics reappeared again, with some unusual “trick” questions — including definitions for terms that do not exist in standard ML terminology, though the topic did exist under a different name. After six rounds: The company said they wanted to schedule a seventh interview, then abruptly decided not to move forward, citing the timed coding test from the very first round as the reason, despite all subsequent interviews having gone well. They also tried to claim I didn’t complete the code in the third interview, though I did (it was a one-character issue that arose because they dismissed my clarifying questions). Overall impression: The process is extremely time-consuming and poorly aligned with the advertised AI/ML focus. Several interviews were redundant, and the technical evaluation emphasized generic algorithm challenges over applied ML engineering. Interviewers had little knowledge of ML, no depth beyond the questions they asked (and some questions outdated by 20-30 years!). It’s disappointing to see this level of disorganization for a senior technical role. They promise equity as a way to compensate for lower salary. In my view, this is effectively a gamble. Based on how the company operates and manages its hiring process, it gave me serious doubts about the company’s prospects. Pros: Professional recruiter; structured schedule; prompt communication early on. Cons: Excessive number of interviews; repeated questions; irrelevant coding tests; missed meetings; unclear and inconsistent technical focus; extremely poor interviewer quality during key coding interviews.