Everyone arguing for LLMs as a corrupting crutch needs to explain why this time is different: why the grammar-checkers-are-crutches, don't-use-wikipedia, spell-check-is-a-crutch, etc. etc. people were all wrong, but this time the tool really is somehow unacceptable.
It also depends on what you're hiring for. If you want a proofreader you probably want to test their abilities to both use a grammar checker, and work without it.
For me the difference is that using an LLM requires a insane amount of work from the interviewer. Fair enough that you'd use Copilot day to day, but can you actually prompt it? Are you able to judge the quality of the output (or where you planning on just pawning that of to your code-reviewer). The spell checker is a good example, do you trust it blindly, or are you literate enough to spot when it makes mistakes?
The "being able to spot the mistakes" is what an interviewer wants to know. Can you actually reason about a problem and sadly many cannot.
