jaymzcampbell

> the standards we have for every other kind of automation go out the window for AI

I think this sums up what I find most frustrating about all of this from the executive level. It feels like everything that was important just a few years ago is now considered unnecessary baggage, that is merely there to slow everything down. What would've got you sacked is now applauded at times, and this is only really a year or two into it proper.

> it's not as if they were going to hire anyone to do it

So many of the comments here seem to be glancing over this point entirely!

Some of this has been mentioned so far but from my side I'd say the 5 minute timer yet very complex scenario is something that sets the "candidate" up to fail immediately, certainly if they're typing all this out. You're lulled into trying to cover the big picture but needing sufficient detail (it's not clear how low to go) to make sense. Having a multi-step process where it's progressively more low level as you drill in would be great. When we do interviews we tend to do very high level boxes then drill into increasing detail covering edge cases. This is hard to do in a one shot response.

This could actually be a useful tool - I regularly do loops of "critique this design" via AI and find it immensely useful, but you're being disingenuous if you're serious that you built this to address getting "honest feedback". I guess you are trying to be edgy, but really this is just a bad attempt for some viral marketing. I'm also fully aware that developer rage baiting was probably half the goal too, and I'm falling for it.

In these situations I will frame my contributions directly without the "we" part, speaking to how I contributed to a particular team output, or if it was 100%, I'll just say as much. My comment was in terms of general talk to stakeholders / presentations / casual conversations - then I default to "we".

E.g. if I add some new feature to a tool and deploy it, I'll say "we've just pushed X...". If I do 99% of some particular feature, I'll still say "we've added Y...". In an annual review I can still speak to what I specifically did. I have probably been lucky in the teams and team sizes I've been in, but I've not had a problem with this.

For context I've mainly stuck to small (<50) and medium (<500) companies. My one experience (due to acquisition) of directly working within a 5000+ company was certainly starting to feel like what you described, I got out.

I've always used "we" when describing and presenting work done as part of a team, even if solo. There's a certain skill in knowing when to promote yourself, and how you do so. These days I tend to be positive in a group sense, and take direct specific ownership of failings. I may be lucky but I think this has led to a lot of respect from coworkers and c-suite that I've engaged with. I've never once felt like people don't know who is getting the work done in the end.

I really loved how easy MacOS made these (option+hypen for en, with shift for em), so I used to use them all the time. I'm a bit miffed by good typography now being an AI smell.

> a lot of people in tech got the impression we'd be endlessly hireable, able to hop between 6 figure jobs and raises for our entire career before early retirement

I've found people that fit this mould to be insufferable to work with

That whole last section read like the constant dross I see posted on Linkedin. I find it hard to take anyone seriously that writes like that.

It's a very different world when you are a single person operation versus a multi-thousand consultancy though. I was being billed out at crazy rates that the same client wouldn't dream of paying me direct.

I had to laugh, these are literally the only three things my wife and I use ours for. At a stretch, I'll count the multi-room speaker sync as a great value add to the OOTB audio playback. Anything else, forget it.