They edited their post to remove the most offensive part, which I appreciate: they changed "BS skills" to "skills". (This leads to an unfortunate situation where my comment looks out of place -- a design error, in my opinion, of the forum software here.)
But there are uncharitable parts, such as:
> ... you couldn't explain what your skills are ...
... as well as:
> What do you plan to do if someone does give you a job and assign you a task? Tell your employer to prompt some tool to explain why you cannot complete that task?
This is a rhetorical question and not a charitable one. I am trying to interpret in a potentially neutral light, but this seems implausible. It seems much more likely to be snarky and mean: why does it assume "you cannot complete that task"?
Overall, the comment reflects an overall dislike of the project, which is fine. But as phrased seems to do more than that; it seems to attack the person who would do such a project. If the comment had demonstrated curiosity and/or attacked the idea clearly without attacking the person, we'd have a better experience here.
I will certainly grant there are good criticisms to be made*, but I don't think they should be done in this way nor with this particular argument.
* Both of this LLM-resume thing in particular as well as a concern that this might become more common*
> why does it assume "you cannot complete that task"?
because the entire discussion around the use of LLMs for content generation instead of, you know, being able to personally describe your professional experience is exactly a case in point for "you cannot complete this task"
> because the entire discussion around the use of LLMs for content generation instead of, you know, being able to personally describe your professional experience...
I don't think I'm following. Why do you think it is "instead of ... being able"? From the very top, by the OP (Jake):
> During my job search I paired my mcp server with others such as notion, hirebase, and gmail to build a leads database, write cover letters, and track my job search.
This is what thimwheet wrote:
> So... you couldn't explain what your skills are and then decided you will ask some "AI" to create a tool so that others could prompt it to have it answer what your skills are?
The OP is capable of explaining his skills. This tools helps him scale his work and be more efficient. It could even help generate leads. Do we disagree or are we just talking about different things?
So many job applications are a waste of time for all parties involved. The medical field also excels in the same way. /s Streamlining the process makes sense for an individual slogging through. Sure, there may be ethical concerns in having an LLM help fill out forms. But the criticisms I've seen in this thread don't go there; they mostly feel mean-spirited without understanding or acknowledging why the OP might get value from this tooling.
I just wanted to say thank you for these replies. I was also confused by the top of this comment chain as I think that author misunderstood what the point of this project this. I wanted to jump in and say something to the effect of "The OP (Jake) has clearly shown he has the aptitude to accomplish tasks by building this tool" but you've done that far better than I could have. Thanks again.
I was trying to find a way to thank xpe more privately but this is evidence I should just go ahead and do it. So, thank you too.
Thanks xpe, I appreciate you jumping in here. I was struggling to find the words here and I think you did a wonderful job both championing the intent of the post as well as articulating why I found it difficult to engage. You've given me tools to use going forward.
But there are uncharitable parts, such as:
> ... you couldn't explain what your skills are ...
... as well as:
> What do you plan to do if someone does give you a job and assign you a task? Tell your employer to prompt some tool to explain why you cannot complete that task?
This is a rhetorical question and not a charitable one. I am trying to interpret in a potentially neutral light, but this seems implausible. It seems much more likely to be snarky and mean: why does it assume "you cannot complete that task"?
Overall, the comment reflects an overall dislike of the project, which is fine. But as phrased seems to do more than that; it seems to attack the person who would do such a project. If the comment had demonstrated curiosity and/or attacked the idea clearly without attacking the person, we'd have a better experience here.
I will certainly grant there are good criticisms to be made*, but I don't think they should be done in this way nor with this particular argument.
* Both of this LLM-resume thing in particular as well as a concern that this might become more common*