I'm on the other side, and my main tip (at least if there's people like me!) is: avoid the usual AI signs.

For one role we got ~70 applications and all CVs looked obviously AI-written. I don't know whether the people did actually do any of the things mentioned and I don't have the time to find out, so the AI-written CVs are a discard-signal for me. (Either those people delegated a very important task to AI and didn't even bother to check, or they are bad using AI and don't know -- I want neither)

Any CVs that signal they were actually written by a person I will actually look at.

> For one role we got ~70 applications and all CVs looked obviously AI-written.

Were those ~70 applications all of them, or were those ~70 applications the result of an AI filtering from a larger amount?

If the latter, are you sure your AI is not filtering out the hand-written CVs and giving you the ones that have been AI-assisted or AI-written (with or without "the usual AI signs")?

The Russians can't even take Ukraine — what makes you think they have a hope in hell of taking the US?

The oceans exist for free.

Moats for software/web companies that are entirely "we've built it, it would be too expensive for you to replicate it" are getting much weaker. It's now quick to produce something that at least looks close to an existing product. You can't clone the backend, the know-how to handle some weird interactions etc, but still, you can get fairly far mimicking the frontend, and LLMs can write you the fancy marketing buzzwords too.

I think the part you can't easily clone will turn out to be the institutional processes that allow you to run at scale, onboard new people, deal with common requests that AI cannot on its own (e.g. legal compliance), the relationships you have with partners and vendors, the legal setups you have in place etc.

I'd assume that plenty of developers feel capable to building a better jira, and some try, and few/none succeed despite atlassian doing everything in their power to drive clients away, because cloning the project isn't the hard part with that type of product.

Are you sympathetic to a doctor who specialized in surgery and now always recommends surgery, even for a common cold? Or would you say they are in the wrong job, if they are anywhere but surgery?

Well that's horribly reductive. I certainly do not expect everyone in a given field to know absolutely everything there is to know in that field.

Crazy enough, I also hold doctors and surgeons to higher standards than web developers.

If those web developers fail a critical government service, or online pharmacy or financial service, it can mess up peoples life pretty badly as well.

Yes it's truly a shame when the people responsible for critical infrastructure only hire the cheap inexperienced software engineers to build it.

Much like how relying on a resident nurse instead of a cardiologist when you are experiencing a heart attack can end your life pretty badly as well.

Ridiculous example that does nothing to argue the original, fair point. Obviously health interventions demand more finely tuned solutions than information technology

FWIW, maintaining at least a moderate degree of empathy even in systemically frustrating situations is good for the empathizer and thus in one’s interest

Tie them to the buyer's identity, offer at-value buy-backs until X weeks before event, disallow resale.

Aren't you leaking that there's an account with that email that has a non-password auth method if you treat them differently?

How would you avoid that? How would someone exploit that information? The whole point of the other auth means are that they're more secure.

If someone enters a username that doesn't exist in the system then you randomly prompt for password or alternate method, so it looks like an account may exist.

Username enumeration isn't usually considered a vulnerability, but it does make other attacks, like credential stuffing, easier. I.E. you can focus attack resources on usernames that have active accounts.

It's very low on my list of concerns though, usually there's much worse problems when I pentest.

Of all the times someone used AI and did not disclose it, I've never found it to be a desire to be better, it was always a desire to do 5 minutes of work and still have a result that looks like you spent multiple hours. Except it only looks that way at a glance, it's usually bad because that type of person does not care, so their prompts are bad, and they don't care to even read the results.

In my experience, the people who actually wanted to improve the presentation of their messages are upfront about it and clearly say they're using AI to organize their thoughts or polish their english.

_before_? youtube is like the top 1000 creators / influencers / celebrities, 5% actual videos, and the rest is slop of various types for me.

The search is entirely gone and will straight up not list regular content that was made by humans, but it will absolutely surface the cheap AI-voices that can't say HVAC fluently.

Makes sense for youtube, too. For the average person, that seems to be enough, the ads are the same value, and people who dislike that probably have a large overlap with people who use adblockers and don't impulsively spend money on the latest browser-game, miracle cure for cancer, or financial advice from random scammers.

If you only visit youtube.com logged out in a private window, obviously it's going to show you what's the most popular. What else should it be doing?

Personally I never see those top 1000 creators / influencers / celebrities. If anything I find the recommendation algorithm too tuned to my topics of interest so it rarely surfaces new things.

Agreed on the search being less than useless, though.

Agreed. Youtube recommendations are genuinely great for me. Most of the time I'll be recommended so many more good videos than I have time for, that my "watch later" playlist only keeps growing.

Compared with, say, Netflix, where even though I've been rating everything I watch on there for 5+ yrs, the recommendations still barely feel personalized (if anything, it feels like it personalizes which premade "top list" to show me, but not the titles within them...but it does personalize the cover art/thumbnail, lol).

I don't only get to YouTube.com from a Google search and that on a browser that I'm not logged into - so it only shows me things that I searched for.

You and I must be watching a very different YouTube. I don't see a lot of AI generated stuff in my recommendations or search.

My teenage daughter gets served a lot of iffy stuff with the ElevenLabs Adam voice though. Though sometimes I suspect some of that content is written manually by people who may not have great English speaking voices, so they add generated audio.

Fair enough

> The right approach would be to say: I do not know. Let me discuss / research with my colleagues and get back to you.

I suppose that would be very close to "you've come to the experts for advice and I probably shouldn't be here because I'm not one of them", which nobody wants to admit.

For many, an honest look at themselves would end with "I don't contribute anything". They have the opposite of impostor syndrome - they don't belong, but they feel like they should, and AI helps them pretend.

I have no idea about that law in particular and no dog in that fight, but I find

> The Constitutional Court has also upheld it, meaning it's quite literally not unconstitutional.

a weak argument when stated that absolute. Constitutional Courts occasionally shift in their opinions over time. If they do change -- has the previous court violated the constitution? Or is the constitution flexible enough to hold opposite viewpoints without being violated? Doesn't it become very flimsy at that point?

I think a better wording would it is not currently considered to be unconstitutional. It might be in the future if the court changes. Naturally that only happens over longer periods of time as old judges die and are replaced with younger judges who were born in a different era and raised with different values.