Stanford AI Lab AI & ML Engineer interview questions

Almost everyone can quote softmax(QKᵀ/√d_k)V. The interviewer wants the variance argument and the exact training failure the scale prevents. Here is the answer that separates memorization from understanding.

The single most-asked applied GenAI question, and the one most candidates answer as a definition dump. The interviewer wants a decision framework with a default and the conditions that flip it. Here is the call that scores.

MoE is why some frontier models have huge parameter counts but serve cheaply. The signal is the sparse-activation idea, the routing mechanism, and the operational cost (memory, load balancing) that the FLOP savings quietly hide.

These are the knobs every LLM product tunes, and the interviewer wants to know what each does to the probability distribution and which setting fits which task. Including why factual and creative tasks want opposite settings.

Alignment is now table stakes even outside 'safety' roles. The interviewer wants the three-stage RLHF pipeline and a crisp account of why DPO dropped the reward model entirely. Here is the answer with the mechanism, not the buzzwords.

Tokenization looks like plumbing until it explains your bill, your latency, and why the model fumbles numbers and rare languages. The signal is knowing how subword tokenizers work and the consequences that fall out of them.

A sudden 22-point AUC jump is a gift and a warning. Junior candidates celebrate; strong ones get suspicious and know exactly which leakage checks to run before anything ships.

Moderation is a multi-stage classification problem with brutal tradeoffs: false negatives cause real harm, false positives censor legitimate users, and the adversary adapts. The signal is the tiered pipeline, per-severity precision/recall calibration, and human-in-the-loop. Here is the design.

Evaluation is the hardest, most underrated part of shipping LLMs. The signal is knowing why public benchmarks mislead, why LLM-as-judge is biased, and how to build a task-specific eval you actually trust.

Offline metrics gate releases; online metrics tell you what actually happened with users. The signal is knowing why offline wins routinely fail to hold online, and how the two feed each other.

Imbalance shows up in fraud, churn, and abuse, and the naive answer (oversample, done) leaks data and inflates offline metrics. The signal is preferring cost-sensitive learning, fixing the metric, and resampling correctly. Here is the full toolkit with tradeoffs.

This is two questions hiding as one: how would you have caught it before full rollout, and how do you debug it now. Answer both and you signal senior judgment. Here is the staged-rollout and root-cause playbook.

Extreme class imbalance plus a hard latency budget plus an adversary who adapts. The signal is handling imbalance honestly, choosing the operating point from costs, and designing for the feedback loop. Here is the end-to-end design.

The interviewer wants real numbers, not 'use a big GPU.' Weights are fixed, the KV cache grows with load, and the lever order decides everything. Here is the back-of-envelope and the serving stack.

The interviewer wants you to know why a model that fits on no single GPU still trains, and to do the optimizer-state memory math that motivates sharding. Here is the parallelism taxonomy and the 16-bytes-per-parameter calculation.

Quantization is the first lever for fitting and speeding up models, and the interviewer wants more than 'use fewer bits.' The signal is knowing what precision buys you, why outliers break naive quantization, and how you prove quality held. Here is that answer.