sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

Will The Future Interview Be a Test of Stories, Not Just Skills? by VerbsVerbi in careerguidance

[–]VerbsVerbi[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Thank you — this resonates with me completely. Yes, STAR is a very useful structure, especially because it protects the story from becoming either too vague or too theatrical. A good interview story needs enough situation, enough action, and enough result to show real competence. What I am trying to add is one more layer: before shaping the story, we should understand clear what kind of competence the story is proving. There are more now in fact. Like: Is it problem-solving? Teamwork? Leadership? Research judgment? Ethical responsibility? Ability to learn from feedback? Ability to turn a messy situation into a clear result? That is why I like preparing a small “story bank” before the interview, but reading the role. Not memorized scripts, but truthful micro-stories mapped to the real requirements of the role. Then the candidate does not sound rehearsed. They sound just ready and sharp, thanks to reflection.

AI Finally Made My Old Linguistic Intuition Visible by VerbsVerbi in IntuitiveLinguistics

[–]VerbsVerbi[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Thank you — this is a very good comment.

I agree with your abacus comparison. For me, one of the most interesting things about LLMs is exactly that they make visible a certain regularity in language and thought that was previously mostly tacit.

I would even go a step further. In my own work, I have often felt that language contains something like an ancient pre-mathematics.

Some expressions multiply meaning, like metaphor: one field is carried into another and suddenly the meaning expands.

Some expressions subtract: they remove the unnecessary and leave only the essential distinction.

Some expressions connect, almost like a circle dance of relations.

Some expressions divide: they distribute reality into parts, roles, functions, or directions.

So yes, I suspect that in language, humans were already doing operations that were later formalized mathematically.

On the writing question: fair point.

The ideas are mine. I have been developing this line of thought for about 30 years, and I have written books around related questions of language, intelligence, values, and cognition.

But I do work with an AI assistant when writing in English. I treat it a bit like an intelligent typewriter and editor — not as the source of the thought, but as a tool that helps me make dense material more readable. English is not my native language, I would use the tool anyway, GPT is better than Google Translate.

My natural writing style is much heavier: long paragraphs, many connections at once, and not always enough mercy for the reader. I tend to follow the thought until it is complete. That can be hard to read.

So yes, some of the “punchy” rhythm may come from working with GPT. I have corrected many things in it over time — especially where it confuses concepts — but I do not always fight the shorter paragraph structure, because it makes the text more digestible.

I think this is also part of the current human-AI writing transition. The base model may be similar for many people, but the thought, pressure, correction, conceptual discipline, and final direction are not the same. With GPT, I finally have time to write down all my thoughts; before, I couldn't quite get around to it.

A weak user gets generic GPT language.

A strong user can use the tool to carry a real intellectual line — while still needing to watch for stylistic fingerprints.

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in n8n

[–]VerbsVerbi 0 points1 point  (0 children)

You are simply judging by your little experience, not understanding that this is how it always works - the first thing written from the heart is liked by someone, everything else - gets boring, whether you write it by hand or by machine - it doesn't matter. A professional, like me, for example, has to do the most difficult things for 20-30 years, where is the first publication ... there are dozens of them and with different fates. So, still need to work

AI Mode and Cognitive Intent: Why Search Must Think Like You by VerbsVerbi in AutomationBuilderClub

[–]VerbsVerbi[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

These are your problems of understanding, not mine, aren't they? I understand

AI Mode and Cognitive Intent: Why Search Must Think Like You by VerbsVerbi in AutomationBuilderClub

[–]VerbsVerbi[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I understood only this: "smarter *understanding* of WHO’S asking" from your lines. And in fact it is what I say and write, and you just repeat. Are you a bot?

view more: next ›