As funny as it is when presented that way, it does make sense. After all if a company is using AI wherever possible, and yet hiring a person, then presumably it’s because they want that person to do things they don’t want to be using AI for.
Yes, developing AI is different from all sorts of things - that’s why an AI dev hiring process would assess competence at AI dev. If a candidate demonstrated competence doing that job, using tools they’ll have available at work, what’s the problem?
I don’t know why people simply say, “Thing A is different from Thing B,” as if it’s a mic drop.
Tell me you know absolutely nothing about the work we actually do without telling me huh.
The top level comment is about AI development not AI use.
Speaking as someone with more than a decade of experience developing AI: prompting ChatGPT to write your cover letter for an AI dev role is at best neutral to your ability to perform the job, at worst a sign of total incompetence.
It’s fucking funny to me how every two years people dream up new and novel ideas of what it is we do based off nothing but vibes lmao
I’m a 40-year software dev. Looks like we’re having two different arguments. I approached the “no AI” rule as a prohibition against using AI to pass a software dev competency test, not to write a cover letter. I haven’t used AI myself in coding, but several of my colleagues - also with decades experience - use it routinely, and according to them it’s very helpful. Since a software dev for an AI company would presumably be writing code, is it a stretch to assume AI coding tools would be used in that work? Incidentally, although I’ve never worked on an AI project I’ve been reading about AI and expert systems since the late 1980s, but that doesn’t seem relevant to the discussion. Anyway, there’s no need for condescension or insults - they never really make a point except about the speaker.
As funny as it is when presented that way, it does make sense. After all if a company is using AI wherever possible, and yet hiring a person, then presumably it’s because they want that person to do things they don’t want to be using AI for.
OTOH assuming the hiring process is competent at assessing job fitness, an applicant who gets through it using AI should be fit to do the job with AI.
Using AI is very different from developing AI.
And…?
Yes, developing AI is different from all sorts of things - that’s why an AI dev hiring process would assess competence at AI dev. If a candidate demonstrated competence doing that job, using tools they’ll have available at work, what’s the problem?
I don’t know why people simply say, “Thing A is different from Thing B,” as if it’s a mic drop.
Tell me you know absolutely nothing about the work we actually do without telling me huh.
The top level comment is about AI development not AI use.
Speaking as someone with more than a decade of experience developing AI: prompting ChatGPT to write your cover letter for an AI dev role is at best neutral to your ability to perform the job, at worst a sign of total incompetence.
It’s fucking funny to me how every two years people dream up new and novel ideas of what it is we do based off nothing but vibes lmao
I’m a 40-year software dev. Looks like we’re having two different arguments. I approached the “no AI” rule as a prohibition against using AI to pass a software dev competency test, not to write a cover letter. I haven’t used AI myself in coding, but several of my colleagues - also with decades experience - use it routinely, and according to them it’s very helpful. Since a software dev for an AI company would presumably be writing code, is it a stretch to assume AI coding tools would be used in that work? Incidentally, although I’ve never worked on an AI project I’ve been reading about AI and expert systems since the late 1980s, but that doesn’t seem relevant to the discussion. Anyway, there’s no need for condescension or insults - they never really make a point except about the speaker.