If they have thousands of examples to cherry pick from... That's a signal of experience. So it's not entirely manipulation. If you can pick from your experience and find the best examples and you have several... You have experience.
It really depends on the topic. You can do a lot by cherrypicking and omitting stuff. Simple example, I can talk about all the stock trades where I hit big and leave an impression that I am super good with picking the right stocks, but not talk about my losses. This is super obvious example, but in real life there is infinite nuance to all of it. The stories I choose to tell and stories that I choose to leave out.
But in the context of job interviews.. It applies. But also that applies in trading, if you have a bunch of experience winning or losing, that's useful experience and I want your input on my team. The fact that you cherry picked is built into the evaluation. You have experience. Whether or not you have some innate talent for it is aside. I care about your experience.
Yes in interviews it is expected and people do cherrypick. But the ability to cherrypick can show a lower skilled person in better light compared to a higher skilled person who may not cherrypick as well or tends to not like cherrypicking the best examples since it doesn't feel honest. Sometimes this honesty can work well, sometimes not. Sometimes if honesty doesn't work well it just means the job wouldn't have been a good fit anyway, but other times it is just putting you at a huge disadvantage.
I have a friend who is somehow super good at that, it is fascinating to me. But he can't be bothered to do actual work. He performs extemely well in interviews, gets high paying job, and then stays there for 3 months, gets bored. Of course he doesn't put that on his resume. He doesn't really lie, but he definitely cherrypicks, embellishes etc. I am kind of the opposite of him. I have stayed at the same place for years and am naturally passionate about software eng, but troubled socially. He is very confident and has no shame.
I don't know how to filters those people. But I'd say in general if people have positive things to show... It doesn't mean they don't have negatives. They can be hiding all kinds of negatives... That's hard to test. But if you have several good examples you probably have some experience. I assume you pick the best. Maybe that's problematic. Maybe some hyper-honest people try to pick a mixture that better represents their skills. But I don't know how you balance for that. I want them to represent themselves and sell themselves.
But job applications aren't the same as normal life so this is probably a tangent. In normal life, though, I kinda assume I'm seeing what people want me to see. But if it looks really good it probably means they have good sample of experiences to cherry pick from.
Yeah, I mean it is tough, but I guess my main point is that it is never super clear what is manipulation, what is persuasion, what is bs, what is honest, etc. Many people cherrypick and omit intentionally, consciously, many people subconsciously and naturally. Many will simply remember only the good things about themselves and radiate only that, others are extremely self critical of themselves, and radiate that. Sometimes one works better than the other.
Two different people can have the same achievement and one thinks it is the most awesome and special achievement ever, and embellishes it, the other thinks it is not even worth mentioning or words it completely differently.
E.g. for job interviews when are you considered to be "mentoring" someone? Someone might do few code reviews and claim they have mentored juniors, other one can have 1 on 1s giving valuable career advice, tech advice, but still not think of themself as a mentor.
I agree. I don't know which segment you fall into... But for applications and interviews I would recommend to radiate... Find your best work. Open source or otherwise. And sell yourself.
That doesn't mesh with normal human behavior. It feels weird. But the corporate world and the private social worlds are disconnected. For me at least. So it's weird. Actually ... That's a weird concept.
I guess I recommend having two minds... One with friends and one with the corporate world. And they don't play by the same rules.
Yeah, agreed here. Ideally you want to have friends who you can be authentic with just so you can have actually meaningful discussions about each other lives and thoughts. Corporate and career can be totally different. Early dating can be a mixed bag etc. And of course there are some other social events too, different types of people you may need to navigate around etc.
I don't know if this is a toxic thing to say or not... But I enjoy my tech friends and I value our discussions. But I most value my science nerd friends outside of tech. Like.. I kinda don't want my friends to be peers. Not because of competition or anything like that. But I want them to nerd out to me about things I'm not steeped in. And I want to get to nerd out to them about computer science and the boundaries of philosophy and math and logic. But having a friend group is central.
AI will probably pass that test. But art is about experience and communicating more subtle things that we humans experience. AI will not be out in society being a person and gaining experience to train on. So if we're not writing it somewhere for it to regurgitate... It will always feel lacking in the subtlety of a real human writer. It depends on us creating content with context in order to mimic someone that can create those stories.
EDIT: As in, it can make really good derivative works. But it will always lag behind a human that has been in real life situations of the time and experienced being a human throughout them. It won't be able to hit the subtle notes that we crave in art.
> AI will not be out in society being a person and gaining experience to train on.
It can absolutely do that, even today - you could update the weights after every interaction. The only reason why we don't do it is because it's insanely computationally expensive.
Sometimes scanned documents are structured really weird, especially for tables. Visually, we can recognize the intention when it's rendered, and so can the AI, but you practically have to render it to recover the spatial context.
But that was when our labor was needed to generate wealth and power for those people. The churches wanted of to work to provide tithes and offerings, the markets want us to work to buy and produce goods.
What happens when that labor isn't as valuable? It seems like someone in power would either want to pacify us or eliminate us.
Feels very similar to last time about a week ago. Profile pages aren't loading but the timeline is. TweetDeck still works so it doesn't seem like a backend api issue or anything severe.
They've experimented with other forms of revenue. Things like Pocket and VPN [1]. I assume that if Google pulled the plug they could find another sponsor but Google may not want to do that anyway, otherwise they run the risk of being an obvious monopoly.
