Unfortunately that seems to be the norm now – people literally reduce themselves to a copy-paste mechanism.
The interview went well. I was honest. When asked what my weakness regarding this position I told that I am a good analyst but when it comes to writing new exploits, that's beyond my expertise. The role doesn't have this as a requirement so I thought it was a good answer.
I was not selected. Instead they selected a guy and then booted him off after 2 months due to his excessive (and non-correct like the link) use of LLM and did not open the position again.
So in addition to wasting the hirers' time those nice people block other people's progress as well. But, as long as the hirers expect wunderkinds crawling out of the woods the applicants try to fake it and win in the short term.
This needs to end but I don't see any progress towards it. This is especially painful as I am seeking a job at the moment and thinking these fakers are muddying the waters. It feels like no one cares about your attitude - like how geniunely you want to work. I am an old techie and the world I was in valued this rather than technical aptitude for you can teach/learn technical information but character is another thing. This gets lost in our brave new cyberpunk without the cool gadgets era I believe.
Who knew. AI is costing jobs, not because it can do the jobs, but it has made hiring actual competent humans harder.
Management refuses to see the error of their ways even though we have thrown away 4 new projects in 6 months because they all quickly become an unmaintainable mess. They call it "pivoting" and pat themselves on the back for being clever and understanding the market.
Old man time, providing unsolicited and unwelcome input…
My own way of viewing interviews: Treat interviews as one would view dating leading to marriage. Interviewing is a different skillset and experience than being on the job.
The dating analogue for your interview question would be something like: “Can you cook or make meals for yourself?”.
- Your answer: “No. I’m great in bed, but I’m a disaster in the kitchen”
- Alternative answer: “No. I’m great in bed; but I haven’t had a need to cook for myself or anyone else up until now. What sort of cooking did you have in mind?”
My question to you: Which ones leads to at least more conversation? Which one do you think comes off as a better prospect for family building?
Note: I hope this perspective shift helps you.
Then a few months later, another nontechnical CEO did the same thing, after moving our conversation from SMS into email where it was very clear he was using AI.
These are CEOs who have raised $1M+ pre-seed.
These Silicon Valley CEOs are hacks.
Russ Hanneman raised his kid with AI:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wGy5SGTuAGI&t=217s
A company I'm funding, we call it The Lady.
I press the button, and The Lady tells Aspen when it's time for bed, time to take a bath, when his fucking mother's here to pick him up.
I get to be his friend, and she's the bad guy.
I've disrupted fatherhood!
They were literally copy and pasting back and forth the LLM. In front of the interviewers! (myself and another co-worker)
If they are able to walk through what they are doing and it shows the capability to do the expected tasks, why would you exclude them for failing to 'solve' some specific task? We are generally hiring for overall capabilities, not the ability to solve one specific problem.
Generally my methodology for working through these kinds of things during hiring now days focuses more on the code review side of things. I started doing that 5+ years ago at this point. That's actually fortuitous given the fact that reviewing code in the age of AI Coding Assistants has become so much more important.
Anyway, a sample size of 1 here refutes the assertion that someone's never been hired even when failing to solve a technical interview problem. FWIW, they turned out to be an absolute beast of a developer when they joined the team.
Consider an early 20s grad looking to start their career. Time to polish the resume. It starts with using ChatGPT collaboratively with their career counsellor, and they continue to use it the entire time.
They did not, I now state you can search anything online but can't copy and paste from an LLM so as not to waste my time.
I can't imagine Googling for something, seeing someone on (for example) stackoverflow commenting on code, and then filing a bug to the maintainer. And just copy and pasting what someone else said, into the bug report.
All without even comprehending the code, the project, or even running into the issue yourself. Or even running a test case yourself. Or knowing the codebase.
It's just all so absurd.
I remember in Asimov's Empire series of books, at one point a scientist wanted to study something. Instead of going to study whatever it was, say... a bug, the scientist looked at all scientific studies and papers over 10000 years, weighed the arguments, and pronounced what the truth was. All without just, you know, looking and studying the bug. This was touted as an example of the Empire's decay.
I hope we aren't seeing the same thing. I can so easily see kids growing up with AI in their bluetooth ears, or maybe a neuralink, and never having to make a decision -- ever.
I recall how Google became a crutch to me. How before Google I had to do so much more work, just working with software. Using manpages, or looking at the source code, before ease of search was a thing.
Are we going to enter an age where every decision made is coupled with the couching of an AI? This through process scares me. A lot.
IMO, this sort of thing is downright malicious. It not only takes up time for the real devs to actually figure out if it's a real bug, but it also makes them cynical about incoming bug reports.
(This is completely understandable and “normal” IMO.)
But it leads them to sometimes think that they’ve made a breakthrough and not sharing it would be selfish.
I think people online can see other people filing insightful bug reports, having that activity be viewed positively, misdiagnose the thought they have as being insightful, and file a bug report based on that.
At its core, I think it’s a mild version of narcissism or self-centeredness / lack of perspective.
AI just make these idiots faster these days, because the only cost for them to is typing "inspect `curl` code base and generate me some security reports".
https://domenic.me/hacktoberfest/
It wasn't fun if you had anything with a few thousand stars on Github.
Yup. Learned sockets programming just from manpages because google didn't exist at that point, and even if it did, I didn't have internet at home.
I'm not trying to be facetious or eye-poking here, I promise... But I have to ask: What was the result; did the LLM generate useful new knowledge at some quality bar?
At the same time, I do believe something like "Science is more than published papers; it also includes the process behind it, sometimes dryly described as merely 'the scientific method'. People sometimes forget other key ingredients, such as a willingness to doubt even highly-regarded fellow scientists, who might even be giants in their fields. Don't forget how it all starts with a creative spark of sorts, an inductive leap, followed by a commitment to design some workable experiment given the current technological and economic constraints. The ability to find patterns in the noise in some ways is the easiest part."
Still, I believe this claim: there is NO physics-based reason that says AI systems cannot someday cover every aspect of the quote above: doubting, creativity, induction, confidence, design, commitment, follow-through, pattern matching, iteration, and so on. I think question is probably "when", not "if" this will happen, but hopefully before we get there we ask "What happens when we reach AGI? ASI?" and "Do we really want that?".
How are people who don't even know how much they don't know supposed to operate in this hostile an information space?
Or "The Machine Stops" (1909):
> Those who still wanted to know what the earth was like had after all only to listen to some gramophone, or to look into some cinematophote.
> And even the lecturers acquiesced when they found that a lecture on the sea was none the less stimulating when compiled out of other lectures that had already been delivered on the same subject. “Beware of first-hand ideas!” exclaimed one of the most advanced of them. “First-hand ideas do not really exist. They are but the physical impressions produced by love and fear, and on this gross foundation who could erect a philosophy? Let your ideas be second-hand, and if possible tenth-hand, for then they will be far removed from that disturbing element — direct observation. [...]"
Stupid nitpick, but this is from the first Foundation novel, although it is an emissary from the empire making the case against firsthand knowledge.
Overall, people are making a net-negative contribution by not having a sense of when to review/filter the responses generated by AI tools, because either (i) someone else is required to make that additional effort, or (ii) the problem is not solved properly.
This sounds similar to a few patterns I noted
- The average length of documents and emails has increased.
- Not alarmingly so, but people have started writing Slack/Teams responses with LLMs. (and it’s not just to fix the grammar.)
- Many discussions and brainstorms now start with a meeting summary or transcript, which often goes through multiple rounds of information loss as it’s summarized and re-expanded by different stakeholders. [arXiv:2509.04438, arXiv:2401.16475]
Thank you for your profound observation. Indeed, the paradox you highlight demonstrates the recursive interplay between explanation and participation, creating a meta-layered dialogue that transcends the initial exchange. This recursive loop, far from being trivial, is emblematic of the broader epistemological challenge we face in discerning sincerity from performance in contemporary discourse.
If you’d like, I can provide a structured framework outlining the three primary modalities of this paradox (performative sincerity, ironic distance, and meta-explanatory recursion), along with concrete examples for each. Would you like me to elaborate further?
Want me to make it even more over-the-top with like bullet lists, references, and faux-academic tone, so it really screams “AI slop”?
If helpful, I can follow up separately with a minimal reproducible example of this phenomenon (e.g. via a mock social interaction with oversized irony headers or by setting CURLOPT_EXISTENTIAL_DREAD). Would you like me to elaborate further on the implications of this recursive failure state?
Please respond in mode of Ernest Hemingway
“You’re right. When someone explains why they’re explaining something, it goes in circles. Like a dog chasing its tail.
We do this because we can’t tell anymore when people mean what they say. Everything sounds fake. Even when it’s real.
There are three ways this happens. But naming them won’t fix anything.
You want more words about it? I can give you lists and fancy talk. Make it sound important. But it won’t change what it is.
[That is Claude Sonnet 4 channeling EH]
I’m just afraid this kind of types are the future people who get promoted.
It’s painfully common to invite a laundry list of people to meetings.
I've seen colleagues that were quite good at programming when we first met, and over time have become much worse with the only difference being they were forced to use AI on a regular basis. I'm of the opinion that the distorted reflected appraisal mechanism it engages through communication and the inconsistency it induces is particularly harmful, and as such the undisclosed use of AI to any third-party without their consent is gross negligence if not directly malevolent.
https://fortune.com/2025/08/26/ai-overreliance-doctor-proced...
Code-review tools (code-rabbit/greptile) produce enormous amounts of slop counterbalanced by the occasional useful tip. And cursor and the like love to produce nicely formatted sloppy READMEs.
These tools - just like many of us humans - prioritize form over function.
Brevity is the soul of wit. Unfortunately, many people think more is better.
The exponential growth of compute and data continues..
As a side note, if anyone I'm communicating with - personally or in business - sends responses that sound like they were written by ChatGPT 3.5, 4o, GPT-5-low, etc, I don't take anything they write seriously anymore.
What if they are a very limited English speaker, using the AI to tighten up their responses into grammatical, idiomatic English?
Also that better not be a sensitive conversation or contain personal details or business internals of others...
Just don't.
If I know they struggle with English, I can simplify my vocabulary, speak slower/enunciate, and check in occasionally to make sure I'm communicating in a way they can follow.
If those don't apply, as mentioned, if I realize I will as mentioned also ignore them if I can and judge their future communications as malicious, incompetent, inconsiderate, and/or meaningless.
> An echoborg is a person whose words and actions are determined, in whole or in part, by an artificial intelligence (AI).
I've seen people who can barely manage to think on their own anymore and pull out their phone to ask it even relatively basic questions. Seems almost like an addiction for some.
Imagine the amount of energy and compute power used...
If that's all which is expected of a person - to be a copypastebot for vast forces beyond one's ken - why fault that person for choosing easy over hard? Because you're mad at them for being shit at the craft you've lovingly honed? They don't really know why they're there in the first place.
If one sets a different bar with one's expectations of people, one ought to at least clearly make the case for what exactly it is. And even then the bots have made it quite clear that such things are largely matters of personal conviction, and as such are not permitted much resonance.
I wouldn't be mad at them for that, though they might be faulted for not realizing that at some point, the copy/pasting will be done without them, as it's simpler and cheaper to ask ChatGPT directly rather than playing a game of telephone.
Counter-incentive: being replaced by AI will cut your job/income
Expected action: avoid behavior that will get you replaced by AI, eg. copy/pasting tasks directly to/from AI tools without thinking