• Kazumara@discuss.tchncs.de
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    32
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 day ago

    Not a bad idea, only they are going to keep the wrong ones, the cheerleaders instead of the skeptics.

    • HubertManne@piefed.social
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      11
      ·
      1 day ago

      I kinda wonder about this because I get asked about ai at interviews and I tend to give sort of a balance perspective. Saying they have uses but have limitations and thier output has to be reviewed and checked. I keep wondering if that is sinking me for positions among my other buerocratic red flags.

      • zoltanshields@lemmy.zip
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        6
        ·
        1 day ago

        I imagine it varies. I don’t ask about AI usage in interviews but if I did I would prefer a balanced answer.

        Skepticism tells me you’re not going to try to vibe code something important or try to install unapproved models. Not being completely anti-AI in the interview tells me you’re not going to insult a manager when they’re being stupid.

        • HubertManne@piefed.social
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          4
          ·
          1 day ago

          Yeah I just wonder if they are looking for gung ho ai all the way responses. I got an interview today and its been ages since I actually had one that was not a head hunter meet and greet.

      • JcbAzPx@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        1 day ago

        It’s fairly likely that if they’re asking about “AI” hoping for a cheerleader response, they won’t be looking to pay you what the position is worth.