17 ms·

I'll be the contrarian and say that I don't find anything wrong with this, and if I were a candidate I'd simply take this as useful information for the applicat

I'll be the contrarian and say that I don't find anything wrong with this, and if I were a candidate I'd simply take this as useful information for the application process. They do encourage use of AI, but they're asking nicely to write my own texts for the application - that's a reasonable request, and I'd have nothing against complying. sshine reply above is coming from a very conflictual mindset. "Can I still use AI and not be caught? Is it cheating? Does it matter if it's cheating?" I think that's a bit like lying on your first date. If you're looking to score, sure, it's somewhat unethical but it works. But if you're looking for a long term collaboration, _and_ you expect to be interviewed by several rounds of very smart people, then you're much better off just going along.

xnorswap 2y ago
I'm with you, I'm very surprised by the amount arguments which boil down to, "Well I can cheat and get away with it, so therefore I should cheat". I have read that people are getting more selfish[1], but it still shocks me how much people are willing to push individualism and selfishness under the guise of either, "Well it's not illegal" or "Well, it's not detectable". I think I'm just very much out of tune with the zeitgeist, because I can't imagine not going along with what's a polite request not to use AI. I guess that puts me at a serious disadvantage in the job market, but I am okay with that, I've always been okay with that. 20 years ago my cohort were doing what I thought were selfish things to get ahead, and I'm fine with not doing those things and ending up on a different lesser trajectory. But that doesn't mean I won't also air my dissatisfaction with just how much people seem to justify selfishness, or don't even regard it as selfish to ignore this request. [1] https://fortune.com/2024/03/12/age-of-selfishness-sick-single-miserable-brains-hardwired-self-interest-altruism-mental-health/ https://fortune.com/2024/03/12/age-of-selfishness-sick-singl...
- exe34 2y ago
  > "Well it's not illegal" What's good for the gander.... I promise you they will use AI to vet your application.
  - dhruvrajvanshi 2y ago
    > I promise you they will use AI to vet your application. So?
    - exe34 2y ago
      > What's good for the gander....
- anal_reactor 2y ago
  Honesty is not something our modern societies optimize for, although I do wish things were different
  - Muromec 2y ago
    It's not just the society, it's this particular company who optimizes for it.
- latexr 2y ago
  > I think I'm just very much out of tune with the zeitgeist, because I can't imagine not going along with what's a polite request not to use AI. No, what you are is ignoring the context. This request comes from a company building, promoting, and selling the very thing they are asking you not to use. Yes, asking you not to use AI is indeed a polite request. It is one you should respect. “The zeitgeist” has as much people in favour of AI as against it, and picking either camp doesn’t make anyone special. Either stance is bound to be detrimental in some companies and positive in others. But none of that matters, what makes this relevant is the context of who’s asking.
  - xnorswap 2y ago
    I didn't miss that context, I understand who Anthropic are.
    - sbarre 2y ago
      That may be true, but your first response still doesn't seem to account for that fact.
  - lolinder 2y ago
    Why does the company that's asking change the analysis here? Shouldn't they know better than anyone the limitations of their product? Are you implying that Anthropic specifically pushes for their models to be used inappropriately as long as they're not the victims of that inappropriate use? Because I haven't seen that at all with Anthropic, they've been consistently the most subdued and reserved AI company out there, barely marketing their products at all and when they do, doing so very carefully. Your reactions in this thread are understandable as reactions against the oversaturation of AI, but it's not really fair to paint all of the companies with the same brush when Anthropic exists to be a foil to Altman's irresponsible push for saturation.
    - pydry 2y ago
      Id say that if a candidate can demonstrably 5x their performance with LLMs then I'd be keen to hire them. By banning LLM usage I think Anthropic is just indirectly admitting that their assessments cant distinguish lameduck LLM reliance and genuine increases in productivity. This is certainly their prerogative but it's still a pretty bad look - like banning calculators in a math exam.
- mattigames 2y ago
  The ones paying are in their vast majority the most selfish of them all, for example it would be reasonable to say that Jeff Bezos its one of the most selfish people on the planet, so at the end it doesn't boil down to "Well I can cheat and get away with it, so therefore I should cheat" but more like "Well I can cheat, get away with it and the victim is just another cheater, so therefore I should cheat"
  - layer8 2y ago
    Two wrongs don’t make a right, and it seems weird to me you‘d want to work for such a most-selfish cheater in the first place.
    - mattigames 2y ago
      Bezos, Musk, Zuckerberg and many many others do everything in their power to reduce costs including paying less taxes, which includes using tax havens and tax loopholes that they themselves make sure to keep open by "lobbying" politicians, so effectively to work in general means to work for mostly cheaters and there is no way to avoid it, sure you can stay unemployed and stay clean of the moral corruption that entails living in a capitalist system but many don't consider that an option; and is not like buying from them is any better morally speaking, for the exact same reasons.
- cedws 2y ago
  >I'm with you, I'm very surprised by the amount arguments which boil down to, "Well I can cheat and get away with it, so therefore I should cheat". Have you seen the job market? Companies will treat you like garbage through the interview process, make you jump through pointless hoops, and then even if you get the job you can be laid off at any moment because of arbitrary reasons the CEO made up to get their bonus. Why should anyone be honest when it goes entirely unappreciated and unrewarded? I can completely understand why people would cheat. When companies stop treating workers like garbage then they deserve honesty.
  - xnorswap 2y ago
    > Why should anyone be honest when it goes entirely unappreciated and unrewarded? This is a good example of the attitude that I'm describing. Your question is close to an unthinkable culture shock to me. In my values and ethics, honesty isn't transactional. It's not something you practice because you expect the same back. It's not something that you regulate and only provide to others that meet some moral bar that you set. Honesty is just something you do because it's ethically right to do so. ( Nor by the way, is it motivated out of some fear of omnipotent reprisal. )
    - ryandrake 2y ago
      It depends on context. Imagine you're playing poker or some other game where being deceptive gives you an advantage. Do you tell the other poker players your hand because Honesty is the ethically right thing to do? You wouldn't win many games. On the other end of the spectrum are your dealings with your own friends and family. You're expected to be honest with them. I'm not going to try to place the job hunt anywhere particular on this spectrum, but surely it's somewhere in between.
      - bryan_w 2y ago
        When playing a game, honesty doesn't require you to announce your cards. But it would be considered dishonest to set up hidden cameras to see your opponent's cards.
    - 2y ago
oneeyedpigeon 2y ago
I love it when the "contrarian view" is absolutely not the contrarian view :)
- latexr 2y ago
  See “contrarian dynamic”. https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=false&query=%22contrarian%20dynamic%22%20by%3Adang&sort=byDate&type=comment https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=false&qu...
- radu_floricica 2y ago
  I did check the conversation thread before I commented. At the time, and without looking very carefully, this particular view seemed missing.
deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
exitb 2y ago
It's not that there's anything wrong with this in particular. It's just that the general market seems much more optimistic about AI impact, than the AI companies themselves.
- jajko 2y ago
  Companies, especially large, are not interested in fads unless directly invested in them. The higher and steeper the initial wave the bigger disappointment, or at least unfulfilled expectations happen, not always but surprisingly often. This is just experience and seniority in general, nothing particular about LLMs. For most businesses, I would behave the same.
- tmnvdb 2y ago
  They don't want a motivation letter to be written by an LLM (because it's specifically about the personal motivation of the human candidate) - as far as I can see this not reflect either positively or negatively on their level of optimism about AI impact in general.
Muromec 2y ago
It is very sensible position and I think the quote is a bit out of context, but the important part here is who it is coming from -- the company that makes money on both cheating in the job application process (which harms employers) and replacing said jobs with AI, or at least creating another excuse for layoffs (which harms the employees). In a sense, they poisoned the well and don't want to drink from it now. Looking at it from this perspective justifies (in the eyes of some people at least) said cheating. Something something catalytic converter from the company truck.
- lupire 2y ago
  It's worse. Anthropic is the one claiming to be a water-enhancing company that you should drink from instead of the posioned well. But they are begging you not to feed them their water.
latexr 2y ago
> I don't find anything wrong with this It’s not about being wrong, it’s about being ironic. We have LLMs shoved down our throats as this new way to communicate—we are encouraged to ask them to make our writing “friendlier” or “more professional”—and then one of the companies creating such a tool asks the very people most interested in it to not use it for the exact purpose we’ve been told it’s good at. They are asking you pretty please to not do the bad thing they allow and encourage everyone to do. They have no issue if you do it to others, but they don’t like it when it’s done to them. It is funny and hypocritical and pulls back the curtain a bit on these companies. It reminded me of the time Roy Wood Jr visited a pro-gun rally where they argued guns make people safe, while simultaneously asking people to not carry guns because they were worried about safety. The cognitive dissonance is worth pointing out. https://youtube.com/watch?v=m2v9z2S5XzQ&t=190 https://youtube.com/watch?v=m2v9z2S5XzQ&t=190
- jack_pp 2y ago
  Making your comms friendlier or whatever is one of the myriad ways to use LLMs. Maybe you personally have "LLMs shoved down your throat" by your corporate overlords. No one in their right mind can say that LLMs were created for such a purpose, it just so happens you can use it in this way.
  - fmbb 2y ago
    LLMs are sold by corporate overlords to corporate overlords. They all know this is what it will be used for. The writing was on the wall that the main use will be spam and phishing. You can say the creators did not intend on this purpose, but it was created with knowledge that this would be the main use case.
  - YurgenJurgensen 2y ago
    LLMs aren’t making your comms friendlier; they’re just making them more vapid. When I see the language that ChatGPT spits out when you tell it to be friendly, I immediately think ‘okay, what is this person trying to sell me?’
    - 2y ago
bayindirh 2y ago
> if I were a candidate I'd simply take this as useful information for the application process. They do encourage use of AI, but they're asking nicely to write my own texts for the application - that's a reasonable request, and I'd have nothing against complying. Sorry, the thought process of thinking that using an LLM for a job application, esp. for a field which requests candid input about one's motivation is acceptable, is beyond me.
- shigawire 2y ago
  The application process feels arbitrary and antagonistic to many. If that was how one felt, there would be little reason not to game the system.
  - bayindirh 2y ago
    I believe in playing the long game, making moves benefiting the short term are unwise choices for the longer term. Of course, we're in a free world. People are free to do what they wish, and face the consequences, of course.
darkstar_16 2y ago
I also don't find anything wrong with their stance. Ironic, sure, but I think to judge someone they need to have filters and in this case, the filter is someone who is able to communicate without AI assistance.
passwordoops 2y ago
I agree with your sentiment. But coming from a generative AI company that says "career development" and "communication" are among their two most popular use cases... That's like a tobacco company telling employees they are not permitted to smoke tobacco
- radu_floricica 2y ago
  Well, they probably aren't permitted to smoke tobacco indoors. I honestly fail to see even the irony. "Company that makes hammers doesn't want you to use hammers all the time". It's a tool. But if I squint, I _can_ see a mean-spirited "haha, look at those hypocrites" coming from people who enjoy tearing others down for no particular reason.
  - passwordoops 2y ago
    But it's ok for Anthropic's marketing, sales and development teams to push to use case (AI for writing, communication and career development)? Even when squinting I can't see a genuine argument for why Anthrpoic shouldn't be raked over the coals for their sheer hypocrisy
    - demosthanos 2y ago
      Do you have an example of the kind of marketing or sales push for communication use cases that you're implying exists? OpenAI totally does have a huge marketing arm, but Anthropic's home page doesn't make it look like they have a very large marketing or sales department at all—it looks like it was designed by the researchers themselves.
  - rfrey 2y ago
    "Company that makes hammers for nailing wood together doesn't want candidates to use hammers during their wood-nailing test."
    - vntok 2y ago
      That makes no sense. It would rather be something like this, which actually makes sense: > Company that makes hammers for nailing wood together doesn't want candidates to use hammers during their hammer-making test.
lr4444lr 2y ago
It's like an un-inked tattoo artist or a tee-totaling sommelier. The optics are just bad. Stand behind your product, or accept that you will be fighting ridicule and suspicion endlessly.
implmntatio 2y ago
> If you're looking to score, sure, it's somewhat unethical but it works. Observation/Implication/Opinion: Think reciprocal forces and trash TV ethics in both, closed and open systems. The consequences are continuously diminished AND unvarying returns. Professionally as well as personally, in all parties involved. Stimulating, inspiring, motivating factors as well as the ability to perceive and "sense" all degrade. But compensation and cheating continue to work, even though, the quality of the game, the players and their output decreases. Nothing and nobody is resilient "enough" to the mechanism force - 'counter'-force so you better pick the right strategy. Waiting/Processing for a couple of days, lessons and honest attempts yields exponentially better results than cheating. Companies should beware of this if they expect results that are qualitatively AND "honestly" safe & sound. This has been ignored in the past decades, which is why we are "here". Too much work, too many jobs, and way too many enabling outs have been lost almost irreversibly, on the individual level as well as in nano-, micro-, and macro-economics. Applicants using AI is fine but applicants not being able to make that output usefully THEIRS is a problem.
deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
BlarfMcFlarf 2y ago
Can I request that they not use AI when evaluating my application, and expect them to respect my wishes? Highly doubtful. Respect is a 2-way street. This is not a collaboration, but a hierarchical mandate in one direction, for protecting themselves from the harms of the very tools they peddle.
coffeefirst 2y ago
Yes. It's also a realistic view of what AI is actually good for. I imagine they wouldn't have a problem with using AI to proofread your responses. That feels like fair game. But... it can't tell you your own thoughts. It has no thoughts. And if it did they certainly aren't your thoughts.
sshine 2y ago
> sshine reply above is coming from a very conflictual mindset. "Can I still use AI and not be caught? Is it cheating? Does it matter if it's cheating?" First off: Since your opinion is the popular one, "sshine reply below". ;-) Those are not questions I ask. Using AI is never cheating, you're optimizing for the wrong thing. Cheating occurs in games. You can use AI, but if your writing ability is so far from what's expected, AI will just make that obvious (sludge). If it's not far off, and you use it as one might use spellcheck or Grammarly, it's like wearing fake heels at an audition: To get noticed. Just don't come on stilts.

xnorswap 2y ago

I'm with you, I'm very surprised by the amount arguments which boil down to, "Well I can cheat and get away with it, so therefore I should cheat". I have read that people are getting more selfish[1], but it still shocks me how much people are willing to push individualism and selfishness under the guise of either, "Well it's not illegal" or "Well, it's not detectable". I think I'm just very much out of tune with the zeitgeist, because I can't imagine not going along with what's a polite request not to use AI. I guess that puts me at a serious disadvantage in the job market, but I am okay with that, I've always been okay with that. 20 years ago my cohort were doing what I thought were selfish things to get ahead, and I'm fine with not doing those things and ending up on a different lesser trajectory. But that doesn't mean I won't also air my dissatisfaction with just how much people seem to justify selfishness, or don't even regard it as selfish to ignore this request. [1] https://fortune.com/2024/03/12/age-of-selfishness-sick-single-miserable-brains-hardwired-self-interest-altruism-mental-health/ https://fortune.com/2024/03/12/age-of-selfishness-sick-singl...

exe34 2y ago
> "Well it's not illegal" What's good for the gander.... I promise you they will use AI to vet your application.
- dhruvrajvanshi 2y ago
  > I promise you they will use AI to vet your application. So?
  - exe34 2y ago
    > What's good for the gander....
anal_reactor 2y ago
Honesty is not something our modern societies optimize for, although I do wish things were different
- Muromec 2y ago
  It's not just the society, it's this particular company who optimizes for it.
latexr 2y ago
> I think I'm just very much out of tune with the zeitgeist, because I can't imagine not going along with what's a polite request not to use AI. No, what you are is ignoring the context. This request comes from a company building, promoting, and selling the very thing they are asking you not to use. Yes, asking you not to use AI is indeed a polite request. It is one you should respect. “The zeitgeist” has as much people in favour of AI as against it, and picking either camp doesn’t make anyone special. Either stance is bound to be detrimental in some companies and positive in others. But none of that matters, what makes this relevant is the context of who’s asking.
- xnorswap 2y ago
  I didn't miss that context, I understand who Anthropic are.
  - sbarre 2y ago
    That may be true, but your first response still doesn't seem to account for that fact.
- lolinder 2y ago
  Why does the company that's asking change the analysis here? Shouldn't they know better than anyone the limitations of their product? Are you implying that Anthropic specifically pushes for their models to be used inappropriately as long as they're not the victims of that inappropriate use? Because I haven't seen that at all with Anthropic, they've been consistently the most subdued and reserved AI company out there, barely marketing their products at all and when they do, doing so very carefully. Your reactions in this thread are understandable as reactions against the oversaturation of AI, but it's not really fair to paint all of the companies with the same brush when Anthropic exists to be a foil to Altman's irresponsible push for saturation.
  - pydry 2y ago
    Id say that if a candidate can demonstrably 5x their performance with LLMs then I'd be keen to hire them. By banning LLM usage I think Anthropic is just indirectly admitting that their assessments cant distinguish lameduck LLM reliance and genuine increases in productivity. This is certainly their prerogative but it's still a pretty bad look - like banning calculators in a math exam.
mattigames 2y ago
The ones paying are in their vast majority the most selfish of them all, for example it would be reasonable to say that Jeff Bezos its one of the most selfish people on the planet, so at the end it doesn't boil down to "Well I can cheat and get away with it, so therefore I should cheat" but more like "Well I can cheat, get away with it and the victim is just another cheater, so therefore I should cheat"
- layer8 2y ago
  Two wrongs don’t make a right, and it seems weird to me you‘d want to work for such a most-selfish cheater in the first place.
  - mattigames 2y ago
    Bezos, Musk, Zuckerberg and many many others do everything in their power to reduce costs including paying less taxes, which includes using tax havens and tax loopholes that they themselves make sure to keep open by "lobbying" politicians, so effectively to work in general means to work for mostly cheaters and there is no way to avoid it, sure you can stay unemployed and stay clean of the moral corruption that entails living in a capitalist system but many don't consider that an option; and is not like buying from them is any better morally speaking, for the exact same reasons.
cedws 2y ago
>I'm with you, I'm very surprised by the amount arguments which boil down to, "Well I can cheat and get away with it, so therefore I should cheat". Have you seen the job market? Companies will treat you like garbage through the interview process, make you jump through pointless hoops, and then even if you get the job you can be laid off at any moment because of arbitrary reasons the CEO made up to get their bonus. Why should anyone be honest when it goes entirely unappreciated and unrewarded? I can completely understand why people would cheat. When companies stop treating workers like garbage then they deserve honesty.
- xnorswap 2y ago
  > Why should anyone be honest when it goes entirely unappreciated and unrewarded? This is a good example of the attitude that I'm describing. Your question is close to an unthinkable culture shock to me. In my values and ethics, honesty isn't transactional. It's not something you practice because you expect the same back. It's not something that you regulate and only provide to others that meet some moral bar that you set. Honesty is just something you do because it's ethically right to do so. ( Nor by the way, is it motivated out of some fear of omnipotent reprisal. )
  - ryandrake 2y ago
    It depends on context. Imagine you're playing poker or some other game where being deceptive gives you an advantage. Do you tell the other poker players your hand because Honesty is the ethically right thing to do? You wouldn't win many games. On the other end of the spectrum are your dealings with your own friends and family. You're expected to be honest with them. I'm not going to try to place the job hunt anywhere particular on this spectrum, but surely it's somewhere in between.
    - bryan_w 2y ago
      When playing a game, honesty doesn't require you to announce your cards. But it would be considered dishonest to set up hidden cameras to see your opponent's cards.
  - 2y ago

oneeyedpigeon 2y ago

I love it when the "contrarian view" is absolutely not the contrarian view :)

latexr 2y ago
See “contrarian dynamic”. https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=false&query=%22contrarian%20dynamic%22%20by%3Adang&sort=byDate&type=comment https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=false&qu...
radu_floricica 2y ago
I did check the conversation thread before I commented. At the time, and without looking very carefully, this particular view seemed missing.

deleted 2y ago

[deleted]

exitb 2y ago

It's not that there's anything wrong with this in particular. It's just that the general market seems much more optimistic about AI impact, than the AI companies themselves.

jajko 2y ago
Companies, especially large, are not interested in fads unless directly invested in them. The higher and steeper the initial wave the bigger disappointment, or at least unfulfilled expectations happen, not always but surprisingly often. This is just experience and seniority in general, nothing particular about LLMs. For most businesses, I would behave the same.
tmnvdb 2y ago
They don't want a motivation letter to be written by an LLM (because it's specifically about the personal motivation of the human candidate) - as far as I can see this not reflect either positively or negatively on their level of optimism about AI impact in general.

Muromec 2y ago

It is very sensible position and I think the quote is a bit out of context, but the important part here is who it is coming from -- the company that makes money on both cheating in the job application process (which harms employers) and replacing said jobs with AI, or at least creating another excuse for layoffs (which harms the employees). In a sense, they poisoned the well and don't want to drink from it now. Looking at it from this perspective justifies (in the eyes of some people at least) said cheating. Something something catalytic converter from the company truck.

lupire 2y ago
It's worse. Anthropic is the one claiming to be a water-enhancing company that you should drink from instead of the posioned well. But they are begging you not to feed them their water.

latexr 2y ago

> I don't find anything wrong with this It’s not about being wrong, it’s about being ironic. We have LLMs shoved down our throats as this new way to communicate—we are encouraged to ask them to make our writing “friendlier” or “more professional”—and then one of the companies creating such a tool asks the very people most interested in it to not use it for the exact purpose we’ve been told it’s good at. They are asking you pretty please to not do the bad thing they allow and encourage everyone to do. They have no issue if you do it to others, but they don’t like it when it’s done to them. It is funny and hypocritical and pulls back the curtain a bit on these companies. It reminded me of the time Roy Wood Jr visited a pro-gun rally where they argued guns make people safe, while simultaneously asking people to not carry guns because they were worried about safety. The cognitive dissonance is worth pointing out. https://youtube.com/watch?v=m2v9z2S5XzQ&t=190 https://youtube.com/watch?v=m2v9z2S5XzQ&t=190

jack_pp 2y ago
Making your comms friendlier or whatever is one of the myriad ways to use LLMs. Maybe you personally have "LLMs shoved down your throat" by your corporate overlords. No one in their right mind can say that LLMs were created for such a purpose, it just so happens you can use it in this way.
- fmbb 2y ago
  LLMs are sold by corporate overlords to corporate overlords. They all know this is what it will be used for. The writing was on the wall that the main use will be spam and phishing. You can say the creators did not intend on this purpose, but it was created with knowledge that this would be the main use case.
- YurgenJurgensen 2y ago
  LLMs aren’t making your comms friendlier; they’re just making them more vapid. When I see the language that ChatGPT spits out when you tell it to be friendly, I immediately think ‘okay, what is this person trying to sell me?’
  - 2y ago

bayindirh 2y ago

> if I were a candidate I'd simply take this as useful information for the application process. They do encourage use of AI, but they're asking nicely to write my own texts for the application - that's a reasonable request, and I'd have nothing against complying. Sorry, the thought process of thinking that using an LLM for a job application, esp. for a field which requests candid input about one's motivation is acceptable, is beyond me.

shigawire 2y ago
The application process feels arbitrary and antagonistic to many. If that was how one felt, there would be little reason not to game the system.
- bayindirh 2y ago
  I believe in playing the long game, making moves benefiting the short term are unwise choices for the longer term. Of course, we're in a free world. People are free to do what they wish, and face the consequences, of course.

darkstar_16 2y ago

I also don't find anything wrong with their stance. Ironic, sure, but I think to judge someone they need to have filters and in this case, the filter is someone who is able to communicate without AI assistance.

passwordoops 2y ago

I agree with your sentiment. But coming from a generative AI company that says "career development" and "communication" are among their two most popular use cases... That's like a tobacco company telling employees they are not permitted to smoke tobacco

radu_floricica 2y ago
Well, they probably aren't permitted to smoke tobacco indoors. I honestly fail to see even the irony. "Company that makes hammers doesn't want you to use hammers all the time". It's a tool. But if I squint, I _can_ see a mean-spirited "haha, look at those hypocrites" coming from people who enjoy tearing others down for no particular reason.
- passwordoops 2y ago
  But it's ok for Anthropic's marketing, sales and development teams to push to use case (AI for writing, communication and career development)? Even when squinting I can't see a genuine argument for why Anthrpoic shouldn't be raked over the coals for their sheer hypocrisy
  - demosthanos 2y ago
    Do you have an example of the kind of marketing or sales push for communication use cases that you're implying exists? OpenAI totally does have a huge marketing arm, but Anthropic's home page doesn't make it look like they have a very large marketing or sales department at all—it looks like it was designed by the researchers themselves.
- rfrey 2y ago
  "Company that makes hammers for nailing wood together doesn't want candidates to use hammers during their wood-nailing test."
  - vntok 2y ago
    That makes no sense. It would rather be something like this, which actually makes sense: > Company that makes hammers for nailing wood together doesn't want candidates to use hammers during their hammer-making test.

lr4444lr 2y ago

It's like an un-inked tattoo artist or a tee-totaling sommelier. The optics are just bad. Stand behind your product, or accept that you will be fighting ridicule and suspicion endlessly.

implmntatio 2y ago

> If you're looking to score, sure, it's somewhat unethical but it works. Observation/Implication/Opinion: Think reciprocal forces and trash TV ethics in both, closed and open systems. The consequences are continuously diminished AND unvarying returns. Professionally as well as personally, in all parties involved. Stimulating, inspiring, motivating factors as well as the ability to perceive and "sense" all degrade. But compensation and cheating continue to work, even though, the quality of the game, the players and their output decreases. Nothing and nobody is resilient "enough" to the mechanism force - 'counter'-force so you better pick the right strategy. Waiting/Processing for a couple of days, lessons and honest attempts yields exponentially better results than cheating. Companies should beware of this if they expect results that are qualitatively AND "honestly" safe & sound. This has been ignored in the past decades, which is why we are "here". Too much work, too many jobs, and way too many enabling outs have been lost almost irreversibly, on the individual level as well as in nano-, micro-, and macro-economics. Applicants using AI is fine but applicants not being able to make that output usefully THEIRS is a problem.

deleted 2y ago

[deleted]

BlarfMcFlarf 2y ago

Can I request that they not use AI when evaluating my application, and expect them to respect my wishes? Highly doubtful. Respect is a 2-way street. This is not a collaboration, but a hierarchical mandate in one direction, for protecting themselves from the harms of the very tools they peddle.

coffeefirst 2y ago

Yes. It's also a realistic view of what AI is actually good for. I imagine they wouldn't have a problem with using AI to proofread your responses. That feels like fair game. But... it can't tell you your own thoughts. It has no thoughts. And if it did they certainly aren't your thoughts.

sshine 2y ago

> sshine reply above is coming from a very conflictual mindset. "Can I still use AI and not be caught? Is it cheating? Does it matter if it's cheating?" First off: Since your opinion is the popular one, "sshine reply below". ;-) Those are not questions I ask. Using AI is never cheating, you're optimizing for the wrong thing. Cheating occurs in games. You can use AI, but if your writing ability is so far from what's expected, AI will just make that obvious (sludge). If it's not far off, and you use it as one might use spellcheck or Grammarly, it's like wearing fake heels at an audition: To get noticed. Just don't come on stilts.