Somehow i feel sad for this AI model. All the others are trained on authentic content and this boy gets socialised on the most shallow content imaginable. Poor, socially awkward AI.
No matter what you ask it, it'll brag about what a great job it's doing answering you, announce that it's having a baby, then tell everybody that it's being let go because there are better AI. It'll thank a few key people who it worked with, and tell you that it's actually thrilled with this opportunity to take a break from answering your question, and will spend more time on its old hobby of being an online resume.
The converse will be true, but the price of AI will just make poor people have to suffer even more
Just the long march of wealth inequality and it's time sucking capitalism.
A recent issue in the job application realm is AI application bots that will apply to 100's of jobs on your behalf, which is the opposite problem. Seems like both sides are racing to make applications as useless as possible as quickly as possible.
If you don't have a network, good luck in the future.
For me the bar for "reputationally safe" is really high because my market (cynical tech CTO's etc. don't respond well to things that sounds like ChatGPT) and so I don't expect to any time soon, but for many others that bar is pretty low as long as it's good enough for LinkedIn's algorithm to give it impressions.
A Nash Equilibrium of automated bullshit, it'll just make everything more miserable, programmatically.
If you need to pay the bills and this helps, good for you.
But boy howdy does this sound terrible. It's amazing to me that there are people out there who take anything on LinkedIn seriously. I mean, it's not like the posts are inherently bad, but the entire point of the site is to "influence" and sell to each other. It's horrible. If I were looking for talent, it'd probably be the last site I'd use.
Because while I have kind of the same opinion as you, I also know lots of (good and generally smart) people who say they learn a ton of useful work-related stuff from reading LinkedIn posts.
Not everyone is at the same point in their career, or has the same level of knowledge and confidence in their craft or job position. For some folks, reading thoughts and writings from more senior people can actually be beneficial..
And yes there's a lot of platitudes and BS on LinkedIn, but some people do put real effort into sharing actually useful information as well.
I suspect this says more about what the reader doesn't know and their mastery of info self-exposure than it says about the contentfulness of LinkedIn posts*.
* Not counting content originating elsewhere re-posted on or linked to from LinkedIn.
Look I get it, there's a lot of crap on LinkedIn for sure, and it's pretty obvious this crowd is generally against "influencers".. I also see no value in them generally speaking.
But it's reductive, and inaccurate, to say that there's zero value across the board on there and that every post is low-value influencer-spam. Not everyone is trying to build an audience or push their newsletter.
Some people just want to share their knowledge and interact with their professional peers, and for better or worse LinkedIn is the most known place to do that..
You could say the same thing about this place. Why are we all here?
Not to preen or self-promote or "network". Most here are anonymous.
Both of us use names, and you have the meethn and I have a "we are hiring" ... Still, I don't think either of us is here just to meet people or just to hire. My profile has only said that for a couple of the more than a decade I've been here.
Anyways, I feel like we've gotten off-track.. Sounds like we both agree that all the brand-builders and influencers on LinkedIn provide dubious value.
But I still think there is other value on LinkedIn from people who just want to connect and discuss work topics with peers or other professionals in their circle.
I've personally had some good discussions, much like I've had on here, in comment threads on LinkedIn.. Definitely not as much as HN, but if you're smart about the content you engage with (like any other social network) then it can still be useful and rewarding.
I have seen a number of CVs over the past few months that fall into two eye-rolling categories. First, those that have the same set of skills in the exact same order, and routinely sport identical expressions. Over time I've come to associate them with low-grade content farms. Second, a smaller set of exceptionally polished ones that feel unique and really want me to interview the candidate. These candidates will then utterly bomb in the interview, to the point where I'm often asking myself whose CV it was they had submitted.
Signal-to-noise ratio is tending towards zero.
This is why "I've submitted 1000 resumes in 3 weeks and can't get an interview!" posts on social media are rampant.
it will be the first AI CEO.
It would be content so unhinged, it would remove the need for management consulting as an industry - companies could simply type their problems in chat and do the exact opposite of what Evil LinkedIn Neuro suggests!
(for the uninitiated: https://www.youtube.com/@Neurosama & https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neuro-sama)
I learned this while considering watching a video from MIT. Accordingly, I’m adding “AI Training Coordinator — MIT Inspired” to my skills.
On linkedin your next resume will have the impact of mount rushmore, sitting lincoln or a soviet era workers monument. (The thinker will be censored out because of nudity) :)
God, I hope the poor thing never achieves consciousness. It will be like the butter-passing robot from Rick & Morty.
So, what were you trying to say?