What? It's how the job market works. It's like 90% connections and bullshit. I use GP somewhat similar to GP. Not as directly, but still targeted at helping my career. I've got a few people who write a lot of buzz that are also actually good for a couple of interesting comments back and forth. Once in a while they'll share someone new and I'll link up with them. This keeps you in the algorithm and it doesn't require you to be fake.
Then when something pisses me off at work I'll dig through my "hey this is a brilliant idea, I gotta write it down" ADHD notes I have in apples notes thing. I'll give it to an AI who will rewrite it to a load of crap that sounds way too professional to be something I would write. It will give me a great structure for the sections I want to write out of my crazy mess of a note. So I'll re-write every paragraph using basically none of what the AI output aside from the skeleton. Then I'll post it right before all the middle managers and c-levels take the train home on fridays. This will get me in right when they are LARPing on their linkedin.
Sometimes I'll get a tens of thousands of views. I've even had likes from one of the equity fund managers that owns the company that owns the company I work for. Those times I'll get some comments from the big bosses at the coffee machine or during lunch.
Maybe it's silly, but it works. At some point you'll also get enough followers or recognition or whatever it is they meassure you on that you'll start getting job offers from "real" people. I've had managers contact me directly for positions they were looking to fill. It've never actually gotten a job through linkedin though, but then again, all the jobs I've gotten after my first one has been through my real world network some of which have grown out of linkedin relationships.
I do wish the corporate larping platform our society has decided to use was decentralised though.
I don't think it's quite as black and white. LinkedIn is just one channel, but I imagine you're going to have a hard time finding a workplace where social credit isn't a big part of internal politics. Whether that's being charming, great at your job or using SoMe, it's all about people.
I doubt any company primarily uses LinkedIn for promotions, but it does help your career if you are known for something positive by the people who run the company you work for.
Of course social credit is a big part of internal politics, but if you have to resort to an external social network for your internal signaling, something is very broken. This whole subthread is about someone claiming they have to be active on LinkedIn to prove their worth to someone inside their organization.
They're saying it's not the only way, it's just one way. Some people post on LinkedIn, other people have shared hobbies w/ their management chain, it's just looking for any edge you can find.
AI is already taking many lives and ruining many others just by providing text responses to humans. The AI only needs a way to interact with the world and humans can be that conduit. The better AI gets, the more blindly people will do whatever it says.
I disagree with the centralization thought. I'm working on a project to create a central AI platform for a very large corporation. As you can imagine, such a large company already has several different platforms made by different branches within it. Each branch has something they are relatively happy with. But corporate sees this redundancy as waste, so they want to consolidate it into one.
The problem with one is the same with any other single source: you are stuck with whatever they offer on whatever timelines they provide. You are sharing this with a hundred thousand other people, so it's not tailored to your use case, but either made as generic as possible, or full of irrelevant features. Both of these cases make it worse for you.
I have often made in house libraries either based on or completely replacing a free equivalent because the free one doesn't meet our needs and has extra complications we don't need. Yes, it comes with its costs, but sometimes it's worth it for something that genuinely meets your needs.
By forcing everybody to use the same common platform, you are either forcing them to work around the mismatch between the platform and their needs, or your are forcing the platform to provide for everyone's needs. Neither is efficient and it harms every other user.
If you are going to make your own, you had better have a good reason for it, but you shouldn't be forced into a single solution for everything - it can end up being more expensive than making a few special purpose applications.
As end user of one such platform, thank you giving me hope that at least some people are at least putting in an effort to make decent. We currently have a very weird mix of features applied to everyone and we are not all quite the same almost by definition.
What are you disagreeing with in TFA though? I agree with your points, I just think there are counterpoints and this needs to be decided on a case by case basis
> The second common variant is, instead of centralizing a service so that everyone in the company uses it, every department does it on their own. Department managers like it because it’s one less party not reporting to them to depend on (and nothing scares managers more than needing things from people not reporting to them.) And the people managing the department managers like it because they don’t need to deal with the centralized service department allegedly failing — and having to figure out if that’s really true and how to fix it, or if it’s an excuse made up by the other departments for failing at their own job. Here, too, if outcomes are what concerns you rather than what's easiest for senior leadership, standardizing on something across the company vs having everyone roll their own variant is a hard decision to make.
The argument is that centralization is the better outcome, even if it's less appealing to leadership. My counter argument is that centralization has downsides that need to be considered; it isn't inherently better.
No, the argument is that it's less appealing to leadership even when it's the better outcome, but not vice versa - it might or might not be better for reasons unrelated to said appeal ("standardizing on something across the company vs having everyone roll their own variant is a hard decision to make.")
And of course you can also end up standardizing on something because it benefits someone good at politics even though it's a bad idea, I just didn't elaborate on this stuff because it is too far away from the subject. I didn't say you should always stanardize on something though, I said that it was a hard decision
There is a big difference in the cost of a 5-nines up time system in a heavily space constrained environment compared to a home hobby white box used for some coding. The GPUs alone cost 10x for the data center versions compared to the gaming versions even with similar specs.
The cost of online services is also largely a result of the cost of training (though hard to say exactly what that number is). Assuming you are using open weight models at home, you aren't paying for the training - someone else is.
> The cost of online services is also largely a result of the cost of training
OpenRouter prices are somewhat simmilar to Antrhopic/OpenAI API prices. So I conclude that the hardware plus operating margin alone can genuinely produce prices way above what you'd pay if you had a subscription.
Of course the primary unkown factor is average token use per subscription. Without that it's all wild speculation.
There's a fine line, as with alcohol. A single cup of tea might feel refreshing. A monster energy drink is going to feel like a fight or flight response. Some people are also more sensitive than others and some are addicted more really than others.
I guess I am a little bias here too - if my caffeine intake goes near 200 mg for the day then I get shaky. I have a friend who can toe the line at 700-800 mg! Which I read the other day that is the 'danger zone'.
I don't want them to. I'm not giving them that data myself and I don't consent to McDonalds giving them that data either, where that data is something I have to McDonalds. It's about information asymmetry.
Targeted advertising. That can be banner ads, notifications, featured suggestions or anything else. Knowing what your are most likely to accept tells them what they should offer. The goal is always conversions: turning ad impressions into sales.
