While I agree LLMs have forever changed the interviewing game, I also strongly disagree with deeming slop code as "perfect" and "optimal".
There's a lot of shitty code made my LLMs, even today. So maybe we should lean in, and get people to critique generated code with the interviewer. Besides, being able to talk through, review, and discuss code is more important than the initial creation.
Interview questions are a genre of their own though. They are:
1. Very commonly repeated across the internet
2. Studied to the point of having perfect solutions written for almost any permutation of them
3. Very short and self-contained, not having to interact with greater systems and usually being solvable in a few dozen lines of code
4. Of limited difficulty (since the candidate is put on the spot and can't really think about it much, you can only make it so hard)
All of that lends them to being practically the perfect LLM use case. I would expect a modern LLM to vastly outperform me in almost any interview question. Maybe that changes for non-juniors who advance far enough to have niche specialist knowledge, but if we're talking about the generic Leetcode-style stuff, I have no doubts that an LLM would do perfectly fine compared to me.
It's an indictment of how bad coding interviews are/were