5 ms·

Why on earth would you train AI on that? In the social media world it's already the closest thing resembling boring, unreadable machine generated content. No m

Why on earth would you train AI on that? In the social media world it's already the closest thing resembling boring, unreadable machine generated content. 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.

theiz 2y ago
Because there is a huge market for resume builders and career guidance where AI can play a role. Using LinkedIn you can measure success and network performance and correlate that to the resume and posted content.
- usefulcat 2y ago
  I was going to say that it's the streetlight effect but this makes even more sense.
  - startupsfail 2y ago
    LinkedIn, like GitHub and (to a degree) OpenAI are under Microsoft’s umbrella.
- cyanydeez 2y ago
  I'm guessing the real money linked in wants is in the hiring and firing, B2B. Now, every resume gets answered and your first interaction with a company is a poorly scripted AI who goes from manic enthusiasm to depressingly rote in the actual job requirements and probably will still ghost you and continue the imbalance of application effort vs employer response. 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.
  - jongjong 2y ago
    This seems to imply that machines would ghost humans to save on token fees. I wouldn't rule it out.
  - BobbyJo 2y ago
    > the imbalance of application effort vs employer response. 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.
    - vidarh 2y ago
      We're heading for the 1990's vision of agents negotiating on our behalf, except less exchange of reliable data and more attempts at bullshitting each other.
- vidarh 2y ago
  There's also real money in writing LinkedIn content that is believable enough for "influencers" to post. I'm currently contracting, and post on LinkedIn at least once a day, and I've added ~1k+ followers in the last month, but it takes effort. Meanwhile, those posts have gotten me work, and so if it was feasible for me to outsource it in a reputationally safe way, I'd consider it. 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.
  - isoprophlex 2y ago
    I hope you realize that if everyone can do "computational influencing", everyone will. A Nash Equilibrium of automated bullshit, it'll just make everything more miserable, programmatically.
    - antimemetics 2y ago
      I think if you read LinkedIn posts you get what you deserve
  - kklisura 2y ago
    :insert Christoph Waltz meme: You're sheltering LinkedIn slop, are you not?
  - soco 2y ago
    I don't think anybody said influencers don't put effort in it. The only argument is that the added value by influencers is zero, be it on Instagram or LinkedIn, so if AI can take that kind of job the net loss is also zero. Of course of course there's an audience for influencers, like there was an audience at Tupperware shows, but they'll be happy to move on to the next fad so again zero loss.
    - avidphantasm 2y ago
      Once again, AI will automate checkboxing tasks—-things that some people think some other people value so it has to be done even though basically no on values it so no one wants to do the soulless task.
- bostik 2y ago
  Anecdotally, I think a fair chunk of writing CVs (and to a smaller degree, cover letters) is already outsourced. Adding an AI to the mix will only make things worse. 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.
  - itsoktocry 2y ago
    >Anecdotally, I think a fair chunk of writing CVs (and to a smaller degree, cover letters) is already outsourced. Adding an AI to the mix will only make things worse. This is why "I've submitted 1000 resumes in 3 weeks and can't get an interview!" posts on social media are rampant.
Propelloni 2y ago
That made me laugh. Thank you.
JumpCrisscross 2y ago
I mean, write me a shitpost isn’t an empty customer set.
klyrs 2y ago
Can't wait 'til it gets raunchy in everybody's DMs unprompted, just like the training data...
- FridgeSeal 2y ago
  I don’t know why you’re downvoted here, it’s pretty well known there’s a huge bunch of people trying to pick up using LinkedIn DM’s, for whatever reason.
  - vidarh 2y ago
    I think they've "fixed" (read: hidden) this better, but it used to be the case that if you looked at the LinkedIn profile of an above average attractive woman, the sidebar used to show profiles people had also looked at and it would invariably almost only profiles of other women with above average attractive profile pictures. While needless to say it was a lot more varied for men. It was just very blatantly showcasing that a lot of people were looking at profiles for reasons that were not so professional. Now the sidebar is a mix of other features, and I wonder if that was because it was easier to do that than "clean up" the profile views.
slashdave 2y ago
So you can make more boring, unreadable machine generated content.
newsclues 2y ago
A HR AI would be useful
dartos 2y ago
Wouldn’t you want an ai to talk to recruiters for you?

theiz 2y ago

Because there is a huge market for resume builders and career guidance where AI can play a role. Using LinkedIn you can measure success and network performance and correlate that to the resume and posted content.

usefulcat 2y ago
I was going to say that it's the streetlight effect but this makes even more sense.
- startupsfail 2y ago
  LinkedIn, like GitHub and (to a degree) OpenAI are under Microsoft’s umbrella.
cyanydeez 2y ago
I'm guessing the real money linked in wants is in the hiring and firing, B2B. Now, every resume gets answered and your first interaction with a company is a poorly scripted AI who goes from manic enthusiasm to depressingly rote in the actual job requirements and probably will still ghost you and continue the imbalance of application effort vs employer response. 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.
- jongjong 2y ago
  This seems to imply that machines would ghost humans to save on token fees. I wouldn't rule it out.
- BobbyJo 2y ago
  > the imbalance of application effort vs employer response. 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.
  - vidarh 2y ago
    We're heading for the 1990's vision of agents negotiating on our behalf, except less exchange of reliable data and more attempts at bullshitting each other.
vidarh 2y ago
There's also real money in writing LinkedIn content that is believable enough for "influencers" to post. I'm currently contracting, and post on LinkedIn at least once a day, and I've added ~1k+ followers in the last month, but it takes effort. Meanwhile, those posts have gotten me work, and so if it was feasible for me to outsource it in a reputationally safe way, I'd consider it. 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.
- isoprophlex 2y ago
  I hope you realize that if everyone can do "computational influencing", everyone will. A Nash Equilibrium of automated bullshit, it'll just make everything more miserable, programmatically.
  - antimemetics 2y ago
    I think if you read LinkedIn posts you get what you deserve
- kklisura 2y ago
  :insert Christoph Waltz meme: You're sheltering LinkedIn slop, are you not?
- soco 2y ago
  I don't think anybody said influencers don't put effort in it. The only argument is that the added value by influencers is zero, be it on Instagram or LinkedIn, so if AI can take that kind of job the net loss is also zero. Of course of course there's an audience for influencers, like there was an audience at Tupperware shows, but they'll be happy to move on to the next fad so again zero loss.
  - avidphantasm 2y ago
    Once again, AI will automate checkboxing tasks—-things that some people think some other people value so it has to be done even though basically no on values it so no one wants to do the soulless task.
bostik 2y ago
Anecdotally, I think a fair chunk of writing CVs (and to a smaller degree, cover letters) is already outsourced. Adding an AI to the mix will only make things worse. 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.
- itsoktocry 2y ago
  >Anecdotally, I think a fair chunk of writing CVs (and to a smaller degree, cover letters) is already outsourced. Adding an AI to the mix will only make things worse. This is why "I've submitted 1000 resumes in 3 weeks and can't get an interview!" posts on social media are rampant.

Propelloni 2y ago

That made me laugh. Thank you.

JumpCrisscross 2y ago

I mean, write me a shitpost isn’t an empty customer set.

klyrs 2y ago

Can't wait 'til it gets raunchy in everybody's DMs unprompted, just like the training data...

FridgeSeal 2y ago
I don’t know why you’re downvoted here, it’s pretty well known there’s a huge bunch of people trying to pick up using LinkedIn DM’s, for whatever reason.
- vidarh 2y ago
  I think they've "fixed" (read: hidden) this better, but it used to be the case that if you looked at the LinkedIn profile of an above average attractive woman, the sidebar used to show profiles people had also looked at and it would invariably almost only profiles of other women with above average attractive profile pictures. While needless to say it was a lot more varied for men. It was just very blatantly showcasing that a lot of people were looking at profiles for reasons that were not so professional. Now the sidebar is a mix of other features, and I wonder if that was because it was easier to do that than "clean up" the profile views.

slashdave 2y ago

So you can make more boring, unreadable machine generated content.

newsclues 2y ago

A HR AI would be useful

dartos 2y ago

Wouldn’t you want an ai to talk to recruiters for you?