There is! And my company has a legitimate interest in taking if the opportunity presents itself. We are a paper clip maximizing operation, not a charity
What is an effective, low effort way to network with colleagues? I keep wanting to get off LinkedIn but worry losing reach to those I worked with previously and missing out on opportunities when I need them.
I wanted to make a simple Linkedin alternative for a long time, based on the primitive idea that the news feed is entirely based on CV updates. No posts, no reactions, no reposts, etc. Just a way to keep your work history and share it with others. Of course, it won't work unless a lot of people join in a short period of time. I don't know how to pull this off.
Well if you ever do build it and post it here I bet you’d get a lot of signups. Especially if you built in an easy referral system where people could send mass invites to their friends if they log in through Google for example.
But I actually wonder if you need the “social graph” at all at first. You could start by making it a place where people post jobs and apply for them. The network effects will come later. All you need is maybe a simple algorithm that matches users to postings they might qualify for.
You just have to build it and have it ready on the sidelines for when something big and egregious happens that a bunch of people are willing to switch at once. Kind of like how BlueSky got its influx.
Though considering the reddit creators were pretending to be different users to fake engagement, it wouldn't surprise me if they also led the charge in the Digg exodus.
I don't get what the big deal is. Most of this data has already been scooped by by Meta, Google, and yes, likely OpenIA, as well as other search bots and already used for training.
Maybe some of this data is gatekept (I've only been able to view other people profiles' only after logging in) but I wouldn't trust Meta, the company that used stolen e-book libraries to train their LLMs, not to find ways around it.
Seemingly a throwaway joke, but actually made me think about an interesting difference between AI and human content.
You wouldn't cringe at LLM output because there's no social context to the situation depicted. You could identify the words as cringeworthy but the emotional subtext would be missing.
Which is why the argument, "if the LLM produces good output, why does it matter where it came from?" doesn't land for many. Art is more than its surface content, AI is exposing a split between camps that do and don't see it that way.
Its no joke, I have seen the things people post on linkedin.
The cringe will be just as strong as most of the existing content is just copypastas that have gotten some traction previously. Once a human hand invokes the LLM they have taken ownership and "approved this message" so I can still quietly and privately laugh at them.
> That means your words, your updates, and the content you put into this platform, will become training material for the machines that in turn generate more content.
But what kind of content? The fake, AI-generated posts made on my behalf? That's probably not the case. Maybe it's a generic LLM training. Or will we constantly be evaluated and profiled by AI for the purpose of automating any future hiring, eliminating the need for human intervention? What a dystopian outlook. I want humans back.
In the EU, LinkedIn says they rely on "legitimate interest" as legal basis.
I would love to see this get litigated.
I a legitimately interested in any economic activity that reassigns your resources to my own assets, at a cost cheaper than it cost to acquire them.
Is that an appropriate legitimate interest or do we need to split hairs?
There is a difference between "giving" and "taking".
There is! And my company has a legitimate interest in taking if the opportunity presents itself. We are a paper clip maximizing operation, not a charity
What is an effective, low effort way to network with colleagues? I keep wanting to get off LinkedIn but worry losing reach to those I worked with previously and missing out on opportunities when I need them.
I wanted to make a simple Linkedin alternative for a long time, based on the primitive idea that the news feed is entirely based on CV updates. No posts, no reactions, no reposts, etc. Just a way to keep your work history and share it with others. Of course, it won't work unless a lot of people join in a short period of time. I don't know how to pull this off.
Well if you ever do build it and post it here I bet you’d get a lot of signups. Especially if you built in an easy referral system where people could send mass invites to their friends if they log in through Google for example.
But I actually wonder if you need the “social graph” at all at first. You could start by making it a place where people post jobs and apply for them. The network effects will come later. All you need is maybe a simple algorithm that matches users to postings they might qualify for.
You just have to build it and have it ready on the sidelines for when something big and egregious happens that a bunch of people are willing to switch at once. Kind of like how BlueSky got its influx.
Edit: also reddit (from the Digg exodus)
Though considering the reddit creators were pretending to be different users to fake engagement, it wouldn't surprise me if they also led the charge in the Digg exodus.
Maybe it sounds crude by comparison, but I just make an effort to pick up the phone and call once in a while to catch up.
This is imho but I don't think "effective" and "low-effort" should be used together. In this particular case at least.
I don't get what the big deal is. Most of this data has already been scooped by by Meta, Google, and yes, likely OpenIA, as well as other search bots and already used for training.
Maybe some of this data is gatekept (I've only been able to view other people profiles' only after logging in) but I wouldn't trust Meta, the company that used stolen e-book libraries to train their LLMs, not to find ways around it.
LinkedIn influnecers will be happy to have higher cringe level content.
Seemingly a throwaway joke, but actually made me think about an interesting difference between AI and human content.
You wouldn't cringe at LLM output because there's no social context to the situation depicted. You could identify the words as cringeworthy but the emotional subtext would be missing.
Which is why the argument, "if the LLM produces good output, why does it matter where it came from?" doesn't land for many. Art is more than its surface content, AI is exposing a split between camps that do and don't see it that way.
Its no joke, I have seen the things people post on linkedin.
The cringe will be just as strong as most of the existing content is just copypastas that have gotten some traction previously. Once a human hand invokes the LLM they have taken ownership and "approved this message" so I can still quietly and privately laugh at them.
So essentially they will create r/LinkedInLunatics as a service.
To what end? It's already just swarms of AI-generated slop posts about B2B sales, etc.
> That means your words, your updates, and the content you put into this platform, will become training material for the machines that in turn generate more content.
But what kind of content? The fake, AI-generated posts made on my behalf? That's probably not the case. Maybe it's a generic LLM training. Or will we constantly be evaluated and profiled by AI for the purpose of automating any future hiring, eliminating the need for human intervention? What a dystopian outlook. I want humans back.
AI can't make LinkedIn worse, I already consider the earnest posters there to be robots.
awful, but expected..
slop meet slop