6 ms·

Potentially important side points, since not everyone knows, and we don't want anyone to learn a mistake by example: 1. Don't use blur to redact documents. Wh

by neilv 2y ago

Potentially important side points, since not everyone knows, and we don't want anyone to learn a mistake by example: 1. Don't use blur to redact documents. Whatever blur was used can probably be reversed. 2. Don't try to hide the identity of someone you're talking about by redacting a few details on their resume. With the prevalence of public and private resume databases, that's probably easy to match up with a name.

criddell 2y ago
Use blur, but blur a different string then paste it over your text. "Nice try" is always a good choice.
myself248 2y ago
If the unredacted parts of the resume were entirely fabricated, what harm is there in having the lies out there? The candidate will be scrubbing from their honest version going forward anyway. Agreed on the blur thing, though. Blur tools should come with warnings.
reneretord 2y ago
Generally I agree with this advice, but if the goal is to make the dork findable with a modicum of plausible deniability this is fine.
jere 2y ago
I'm often surprised when someone will paste a screenshot of a tweet with the name blurred (presumably to protect them from harassment). The contents of the tweet are easily searchable...
- sundarurfriend 2y ago
  Public tweets are a different scenario, they are things that have intentionally been shouted out into the void for anyone to hear. Blurring out names is a courtesy to prevent low-effort harrassment (which is most of it), while using the tweet for its intended purpose (i.e. showing its message to the public).
gwbas1c 2y ago
> Don't use blur to redact documents. Whatever blur was used can probably be reversed. I just got mosquito noise when I sharpened. Are you confusing blurring with pixelating? As long as the blur is strong enough, there's no way to get the text back.
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
- crazygringo 2y ago
  Regular sharpening doesn't work. But a deconvolution filter will. You can't do it in Photoshop but you can with a dedicated tool that tries different deconvolution kernels until it finds one that matches the exact original blur function. This is how you can remove motion blur from a photo due to camera movement, for example. It's wild how much information is still there, in the exact precise levels and shape of the blur. There are limits of course, but they're much further than you might expect.
  - gwbas1c 2y ago
    Well, let's see you do it! Can you deblur something like the first 2-3 letters of a name?
    - crazygringo 2y ago
      > Well, let's see you do it! That's a bit rude to be making demands when I was just trying to provide some helpful info. If you want to learn more, you can google it. I'm not the person who invented deconvolution. It's not secret knowledge.
      - gwbas1c 2y ago
        So then I'm going to interpret that as not being possible.
        crazygringo 2y ago
goldchainposse 2y ago
3. This probably counts as copyright infringement, unless it's chatbot output.
- neilv 2y ago
  IANAL, but I wouldn't be surprised if this was found to be legitimate fair use.
highwaylights 2y ago
There’s a few red flags here on the hiring side too. I’ve given a lot of interviews, candidates will always try to come up with the best story as an answer to your question because “I can’t think of an example” is not an acceptable answer. It’s a demand you’re placing on them. Also having experience puffed up on a resume happens around 100% of the time. The point of the interview is to figure out how much real relevant experience the candidate has. OP was right to end the interview as they were an unprepared candidate and a bad fit, but low-key threatening someone with “word gets around” who’s trying to find a job and probably starting to panic about not having one doesn’t make him the good guy in this story that he thinks it does. OP could have just told them not to use AI in future, but even that’s unnecessary as the lesson’s already been learned. (I’ve also noticed that towards the end of the post OP mentions this, but it doesn’t line up with the actual call as described unfortunately)
- sethammons 2y ago
  > having experience puffed up on a resume happens around 100% of the time Maybe I am the rounding error. I have zero puffery, exaggerations, embellishments, stolen credit, or lies on my resume.
  - alexdowad 2y ago
    I'm together with sethammons in that "rounding error". I actually go further and explicitly list things which I'm not good at on my resumé.
    - wat10000 2y ago
      If you’re really good at what you do, there’s no need to embellish. Company is looking for five years of experience in something that’s only been available for four years? Screw ‘em, you don’t want to work at such a stupid place anyway. Good employers know how to find good employees.
  - cutemonster 2y ago
    Yes me too, zero, and I'm pretty sure it's closer to zero than to 100% among others also, here where I live
mortar 2y ago
On 2, I was surprised the author included the screenshot in their write up so I did some very pointed searches on some of the strings, and was surprised to see just how many profiles on LinkedIn were sourced for this farce. Good work LLMs

by neilv 2y ago

criddell 2y ago

Use blur, but blur a different string then paste it over your text. "Nice try" is always a good choice.

myself248 2y ago

If the unredacted parts of the resume were entirely fabricated, what harm is there in having the lies out there? The candidate will be scrubbing from their honest version going forward anyway. Agreed on the blur thing, though. Blur tools should come with warnings.

reneretord 2y ago

Generally I agree with this advice, but if the goal is to make the dork findable with a modicum of plausible deniability this is fine.

jere 2y ago

I'm often surprised when someone will paste a screenshot of a tweet with the name blurred (presumably to protect them from harassment). The contents of the tweet are easily searchable...

sundarurfriend 2y ago
Public tweets are a different scenario, they are things that have intentionally been shouted out into the void for anyone to hear. Blurring out names is a courtesy to prevent low-effort harrassment (which is most of it), while using the tweet for its intended purpose (i.e. showing its message to the public).

gwbas1c 2y ago

> Don't use blur to redact documents. Whatever blur was used can probably be reversed. I just got mosquito noise when I sharpened. Are you confusing blurring with pixelating? As long as the blur is strong enough, there's no way to get the text back.

deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
crazygringo 2y ago
Regular sharpening doesn't work. But a deconvolution filter will. You can't do it in Photoshop but you can with a dedicated tool that tries different deconvolution kernels until it finds one that matches the exact original blur function. This is how you can remove motion blur from a photo due to camera movement, for example. It's wild how much information is still there, in the exact precise levels and shape of the blur. There are limits of course, but they're much further than you might expect.
- gwbas1c 2y ago
  Well, let's see you do it! Can you deblur something like the first 2-3 letters of a name?
  - crazygringo 2y ago
    > Well, let's see you do it! That's a bit rude to be making demands when I was just trying to provide some helpful info. If you want to learn more, you can google it. I'm not the person who invented deconvolution. It's not secret knowledge.
    - gwbas1c 2y ago
      So then I'm going to interpret that as not being possible.
      - crazygringo 2y ago

goldchainposse 2y ago

3. This probably counts as copyright infringement, unless it's chatbot output.

neilv 2y ago
IANAL, but I wouldn't be surprised if this was found to be legitimate fair use.

highwaylights 2y ago

There’s a few red flags here on the hiring side too. I’ve given a lot of interviews, candidates will always try to come up with the best story as an answer to your question because “I can’t think of an example” is not an acceptable answer. It’s a demand you’re placing on them. Also having experience puffed up on a resume happens around 100% of the time. The point of the interview is to figure out how much real relevant experience the candidate has. OP was right to end the interview as they were an unprepared candidate and a bad fit, but low-key threatening someone with “word gets around” who’s trying to find a job and probably starting to panic about not having one doesn’t make him the good guy in this story that he thinks it does. OP could have just told them not to use AI in future, but even that’s unnecessary as the lesson’s already been learned. (I’ve also noticed that towards the end of the post OP mentions this, but it doesn’t line up with the actual call as described unfortunately)

sethammons 2y ago
> having experience puffed up on a resume happens around 100% of the time Maybe I am the rounding error. I have zero puffery, exaggerations, embellishments, stolen credit, or lies on my resume.
- alexdowad 2y ago
  I'm together with sethammons in that "rounding error". I actually go further and explicitly list things which I'm not good at on my resumé.
  - wat10000 2y ago
    If you’re really good at what you do, there’s no need to embellish. Company is looking for five years of experience in something that’s only been available for four years? Screw ‘em, you don’t want to work at such a stupid place anyway. Good employers know how to find good employees.
- cutemonster 2y ago
  Yes me too, zero, and I'm pretty sure it's closer to zero than to 100% among others also, here where I live

mortar 2y ago

On 2, I was surprised the author included the screenshot in their write up so I did some very pointed searches on some of the strings, and was surprised to see just how many profiles on LinkedIn were sourced for this farce. Good work LLMs