this post was submitted on 05 Sep 2026
368 points (94.4% liked)

Fuck AI

8139 readers
1543 users here now

"We did it, Patrick! We made a technological breakthrough!"

A place for all those who loathe AI to discuss things, post articles, and ridicule the AI hype. Proud supporter of working people. And proud booer of SXSW 2024.

AI, in this case, refers to LLMs, GPT technology, and anything listed as "AI" meant to increase market valuations.

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] Knock_Knock_Lemmy_In@lemmy.world 4 points 19 hours ago (1 children)

If the salary is wrong they will move, but having additional skills doesn't interfere with one skill being employed.

[–] qevlarr@lemmy.world 0 points 17 hours ago (1 children)

Hiring is about more than just "can they do it". That's the issue. HR isn't trying to fuck you over. They want the best fit and that isn't necessarily the most qualified candidate.

[–] Knock_Knock_Lemmy_In@lemmy.world 1 points 15 hours ago* (last edited 15 hours ago) (1 children)

Now you are changing the criteria to add in more things to "fit".

Imagine we have the perfect candidate for a job under all measures, except they have a masters (or PHD) instead of a bachelors. A rejection in that case is stupid.

Overqualified is just code for "too expensive".

[–] qevlarr@lemmy.world 1 points 14 hours ago* (last edited 14 hours ago)

That's not how it goes. You'd hire the perfect candidate under all measures. So that's a silly hypothetical. But maybe they have another candidate where the risk is much lower of them leaving after investing training effort, or of them getting bored or finding a job elsewhere more suited to their capabilities, then it makes sense not to hire the overqualified candidate. It's not usually this one thing, unless early on in the process and they have loads of candidates. And again, "too expensive" is also a legitimate reason not to hire someone.