Does it make sense for people to have to solve problems in interviews?

This issue has been debated ad nauseam on HN, practically every week. No offense intended to the asker, but I'm not sure this question is useful, given the social context. Round N in an N-dless debate. The question adds nothing new to it, and no detail ("it doesn't really make sense").

You question isn't really "does it make sense", you're just taking an opinion poll on what interview style people prefer.

I'd rather solve problems during the interview than do take homes.

You're saying it doesn't make sense to solve problems in interviews, but you're not saying why.

It makes a lot of sense to solve problems in interviews, the interviewer gets to see your thought process and it prevents cheating by getting someone else to solve the problem. Furthermore, unlike talking about past projects, the interviewer can compare the answers of different candidates on the same problem.

As an Interviewer:

I think it's helpful, in order for me to understand the person I'm interviewing, to pair program on a problem together. I don't think it makes sense for them to LeetCode an algorithm in front of me; I think it makes sense for us to build a working API or an Async Worker. I need to know that you _know_ these things or at least know that _you can figure these things out_ and know how to _ask questions when you are stuck_.

As an Interviewee:

I won't do take-homes. I barely like having to do 1hr long interviews, there's no way I'm going to take 1hr+ of my time _outside of work and interviewing_ to do your toy problem _and then talk to you about it_. I would love to hang out, sling code together, and spend time nerding out for 1hr with people as an interview. In fact, I know that if the interview is a "let's code together" one that I'm pretty likely to get the job so I look forward to those types of interviews.

I think: Yes. As long as the problem is representative of the types of problems that the candidate will be required to solve if hired for the job. Naturally the problems should be within the candidate's claimed areas of expertise.

I like to pose problems that have been solved a while back, but was the subject of some considerable debate. Given a whiteboard, I am more interested in how the candidate approaches the problem and the questions they ask, the concerns they raise. In other words, demonstrating a mature approach.

I think it's useful to devise a problem solving exercise in order to assess reasoning and capacity of the candidate to think on their feet.

I don’t think it does make sense since some people may take a little more time to solve a problem well even if they’re more qualified.

Short answer: If done well, yes. It's usually not done well.

How do you catch liars?