I actually gave a de-gendered draft of the essay to some friends a few days ago and heard that it landed with a thud — the essay is largely written about myself, in the third person, retrospectively, so removing the pronoun made the autobiographical thread harder to follow. I switched it to "he" to make that clearer.
I think if I used "she" it would've made the "That kid was me" transition harder — it would either involve some gymnastics to make it make sense or it would introduce a reading I didn't intend.
Yes, I thought that was probably the case, but it stuck out to me. Sorry, I didn't mean to come across as chiding you; I think the basic point about who is and isn't "allowed" to think of themselves as a computer-person is a really interesting one, and also that you can't address this topic properly without addressing gender (and race).
I would describe myself as pretty AI-positive in software engineering, and even in technical writing, but something about seeing diagrams that are clearly generated by Nano Banana Pro immediately makes me stop reading. Weird!
I think I've unintentionally trained myself to notice (and tune out) both AI illustrations and AI writing.
At a deep instinctual level, knowing that someone hasn't spent much time or effort creating the content makes me not want to reciprocate with time or effort.
I've realised that my brain literally tunes out AI illustrations, much as it does with ad banners.
Perhaps since they're easy to generate, I encounter illustration more -- it's no longer a signal of quality.
That's not the only thing clearly generated. "Some looming issues", "some thorny issues", it's full of these weird AI sayings. The whole thing feels weirdly written.
I think it's mostly just that we are very good at picking up on patterns, and it's extremely noticeable that half the internet has started writing in the same voice with the same tics. If Claude were quietly posting away in 2017 I don't think anyone would think twice about its output.
We're well past the point where humans can reliably identify AI generated content. Sure, you might often correctly identify AI content, but part of that is due to how much AI content there is; you can call everything AI generated and still have a high ratio of correctness. Meanwhile, I guarantee there's a lot of AI content that you're failing to notice.
Rather than using the AI bogeyman, why not analyze things as-is? If it's good or bad, does it matter if it's AI or human? Or are you in denial about some existential fear?
To me, the something in this case is the mangled text and the weird "lighting" in some of the icons. Not the worst I've seen but it definitely puts you off.
It's all wonky with "hand drawn letters" and slightly off with low fidelity and repetitive usage of graphical primitives.
Low quality trash that is offensive to be given to read because the author didn't actually give enough shits to spend a few minutes creating the graphics by hand.
I don't want to work with people like "Jim Yagmin", people that consider this kind of output acceptable. This immediately makes me expect sub par "good enough" work with no attention to detail. Just slop it at the wall and see what sticks!
> Please retire to do something that doesn't hurt my soul this badly and that you might actually have an aptitude for, like burning down orphanages or kicking puppies.
Yea, this guy sounds pleasant. Would love to work with him.
But seriously, I don't understand how people can appreciate this level of toxicity.
Work for a terrible engineering organization (public, private, doesn’t matter) and you’ll understand. Especially where technical leadership can’t rely on engineers to do anything but code with very strict guardrails.
One of my favorite people I ever worked with was like this. We could disagree on an approach, I’d call him a moron, he’d tell me to go fuck myself, then we’d laugh and go back to our work.
It’s a very different style of work where politeness, ego, and professionalism weren’t factors. The only focus was the tech and ensuring it was moving as efficiently as possible. You could really push things in whatever direction you needed as long as you had the metrics to show it was better.
Or you can judge how to approach each interaction individually instead of applying a global veneer of fake pleasantness that the US work culture labels as "being professional".
I think much like the author’s writing it’s a very polarizing thing, and it either clicks with people or doesn’t. For those that it doesn’t I can understand the viewpoint that it’s extremely negative.
I disagree that it’s inherently rude or aggressive. You can absolutely tell someone they’re a moron in a very polite and joking way, but it clearly won’t translate into writing very well.
I think it’s funny, and I see it more as a stylistic choice to vent the author‘s frustration with the process than an actual reflection of their character. It is just their personal blog overall.
I don't think it's about being honest. Organizations are difficult to manage. Join a shitty org and try to make it better. You're not entitled to some role doing something you love in a perfectly run organization. Such things don't exist and if you think you're smarter than everyone else, manifest this organization somewhere
I know you’re just joking, but clearly you’re never met a real-life narcissist. It’s incredible trying to explain to them that they’re wrong about something and seeing the expressions on their face as they literally struggle to understand how they could possibly have failed
Eh, if that’s the worst you’ve seen it probably wasn’t NPD (more garden variety or inexperienced narcissism).
The really ‘fun’ folks are when you never see any confusion, because they ‘know’ they couldn’t fail - they ‘know’ you’re conspiring to destroy them using whatever tricks they tend to use, and have no doubts about it. Regardless of how absurd or illogical that would be.
And then the sabotage, manipulation, gaslighting, triangulation, false accusations, outright attacks, etc. start. With no remorse, because in their eyes they’re the victim and are just being ‘fair’.
That’s when document, document, document, and better hope you’ve got real power and a way to back it up, or you’re going to have a hard time. Probably even then. Because yes, they’re exhausting.
On the one hand the idiocy and incompetence in these interviews is not unusual for corporate hiring of all kinds. So it's reasonable to be infuriated.
But there's more than a hint of narcissism in the writing. Which is incredibly toxic to work with, because every interaction becomes less about solving problems and more about aggressive assertions of dominance and superiority.
On the upside, if he's as smart as he wants to be, he'll be able to solve his problem.
A few narcissists I've met in tech have potential but never get past first base because they are incapable of admitting they're wrong, and therefore incapable of improving. They are perpetually junior devs that are good at self promotion.
I'm not saying the author is like that, but he might be.
They don’t really pump themselves. Their network is full of people they appreciate.
They would like to work in a better context with such people.
They are discouraged by the quagmire of the low quality cold interview swamp.
I don’t see narcissistic flags here, and I have had significant experiences with that category of person. Unfortunately.
The irreverent gallows humor seems to be throwing some people off. But that is often a creative person’s tactic for maintaining a light mood in casual (not professional) contexts, despite rough circumstances.
(Narcissism isn’t being off putting, difficult, unpleasant, objectionable, etc. It is as important to not overapply that concept as it is to recognize it. It is usually not immediately obvious, as they are often image conscious and exude charm. Unless they have a secure power imbalance, or you are socially irrelevant to what they care about.)
Letting off steam is good; doing it publicly is not good, unless it’s your job (writer, comedian, etc.)
It’s offputting that someone can’t control well what they say in public. It’s okay to talk shit in private, it’s natural —but making it public in such a voice is offputting.
There are many hilarious stories from the tech support trenches that are well written, captivating, without descending into the badmouthing trap.
One that I recall is a kid who worked like a house call Genius Bar in the Chicago loop neighborhood or thereabouts, it was funny, witty storytelling about the mias entires he suffered, but never shat on people.
No one even bothers reading a one-page resume past skimming for a few keywords. You really think potential employers are going to sit down and read a 5,000-word essay??
This makes sense to me -- I find that if I ask it to generate more than, say, a paragraph of code at a time[1], I'd be much better off just writing it myself.
That said, I have issues with RSI, so every saved keystroke is extremely useful to me. I find Copilot's ability to accurately predict the next, say, ten words I'm about to type very useful.
The usual insult thrown at LLMs is that they're "fancy autocomplete". I think that's actually about right, and I'm extremely sceptical about any claims made about their critical thinking skills which I think are essentially non-existent. Where I differ with most AI-sceptics is that I think fancy autocomplete is incredibly valuable.
[1]: Let's say that's about a mid-sized function definition.
