As I said before, yes these are very basic questions... and I'm not complaining that the questions were too hard or anything, I'm saying that finding someone who will be able to answer 100% of these "definition" questions will not tell you anything about how competent that person is...
Making them face a simple stats/CS/maths/ML problem and see if he/she is able to come up with the relevant concepts is far more interesting.
Ah, I see. Personally I think I could have taken the "give an example of a classifier" question into a deep dive of their competency (talk about how one would build that classifier, etc.) but they might get so many completely unqualified candidates that don't know those things that they need to have those sorts of hurdles before they start really evaluating you for more holistic problem solving traits.
But if you don't think they did that at all then I guess that's bad!
I generally am for the "look things up" argument, but so many people in tech take that to an extreme of "I can fully understand an entire discipline by looking at the Wikipedia page for 5 minutes".
I completely agree with you. Also to be fair towards Deepmind I should mention that this was the first round of interview. Hopefully the following steps will prove more stimulating, in which case 3h for the first step was maybe slightly too much.
Making them face a simple stats/CS/maths/ML problem and see if he/she is able to come up with the relevant concepts is far more interesting.