Basic question:
What are you doing here that my agent couldn't do with: AWS, GCP, Hetzner, DigitialOcean?
Quick read is this is some simple api abstraction? or you're even brokering that compute? Which i would want, why?
163 karma · joined December 2, 2016
What are you doing here that my agent couldn't do with: AWS, GCP, Hetzner, DigitialOcean?
Quick read is this is some simple api abstraction? or you're even brokering that compute? Which i would want, why?
Really nice ui based on the demo.
Ideally there would be something on https://json-schema.org/ (as there are for industry job posting standards)
Google in fact allows minified code, not obfuscated.
Using LinkedIn is a highly desired feature in the resume builder business. Highly successful firms are using 3rd party services that scrape your profile (already have) without your consent.
So, no, you can parse the minified code all you like - the advantage we have with my implementation is competitors spend minutes scraping while we dont need to. - Which as you've inherently figured out, is not that insightful. - The extension codebase is small and doesnt communicate with any server
If it comes out any decent, lmk and we'll give you some credits for the paid service. The UX around tailoring resumes isnt as intuitive.
You can do some free tailoring on the home page as well, this ux is straight forward: cvgist.com
Also, we do not scrape any data explicitly. At no point in time do we read data from the linkedin api nor html.
2. It's not clear how these tools grab this data without some direct integration with LinkedIn or Violation of their terms
3. We use AI to craft resume language, Kick Resume is a copy/Paste
4. We provide a word doc you can download and edit yourself.
https://blog.cvgist.com/2024/05/23/ai-and-resumes-cutting-th...
In other engagements I'm involved in, not through this product, we are seeking to enable employers. I do believe AI will help reduce noise; my argument is humans have been far worse in creating it than AI could be, and far less productive in filtering it than AI will be.
My inbox used to be filled with 50+ resumes humans manipulated themselves - reviewing them for authenticity was hard and time consuming.
We make no claims to make this better. We claim to help the job seeker.
AI will indeed resolve dilemmas on all sides imo.
And it's about AI's ability to actually deliver on that.
It's not about gaming the system or making things up. We try to guide all of the prompts we use to only expand upon or assume details from user prompts. We make strict mention to not make anything up.
I understand AI hallucinates, and alignment is early. But I'm a believer in where we are headed with AI, and I believe there will be a ton of valuable productivity to be gained.
Regarding what the other commenter said... I actually agree... let's kill inbound because human recruiters have been the most egregious players in hiring. As a tech leader I had countless bogus resumes thrown my way, long before AI was a reality. AI imo will revolutionize the hiring experience for the better.
The best platform turned out to be Clubhouse... where I could talk the talk with like minded individuals... discussing preemptible VM hacking with Kelsey Hightower was memorable. But that platform sadly dies a slow death.
I think the cover letter is where experienced individuals have a chance to write the no-bs, all-out, explanation of why they are fit for the job. We choose not to offer this as a feature.
The resume is an anchor for interview conversations, and filtering in recruiting. I agree that it is all unideal actually but regardless is a part of the process. It can be a barrier for job seekers, and we wanted to break that barrier down.
I think AI is set to make the job seeking and hiring experiences better fwiw.
Our original goal was to help people get their resume going and into a nice-looking doc asap.
College students we interviewed were adamantly against subscriptions, so we pivoted. We realize it's a more effort for seasoned professionals.
We're going to increase the cheapest offering to at least 2. GPT-4 has some cost limits, but we're actively figuring out how to squeeze more value for users. Our dream is to "speak to your document" and we're evaluating if we can and should try to get there. We think we have innovations in the word processing space... obviously it's not the safest area to play in with MSFT looking to innovate their own products with Agents.
Feedback welcome of course!
But, and just as this written journalism can influence, that doesn't mean the adversarial stance is wrong.
Information feed and stimuli are becoming increasingly powerful. It's not clear where lines should be drawn, but there may be some moral dilemmas worth discussing.