Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

I almost got hacked by a 'job interview'

blog.daviddodda.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

491–500 of 534 posts

Re: I almost got hacked by a 'job interview'

#491

Post by aydyn »

ddtaylor wrote: post #489
aydyn wrote: post #239

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I asked them the same questions I ask all scammers: How was this easier than just doing a normal job? Ostensibly more profitable? Dont forget there are a lot of places where even what would be minimum wage in a first world country would be a big deal to an individual.

A project manager gets paid more than minimum wage and those are actual skills that are in demand. Going through hoops to have to cash out some of your money is a big red flag you're probably scamming yourself . I think it works similar to most low-tier street crimes. If you zoom out and look at the vast majority of the "labor" they only make some of the pennies they keep. In the same way there are a few stand-out "h…

Project manager? Dude, the median income in cambodia is 500 USD.

If a cambodian scammer can harpoon a single american whale thats basically a lifetime worth of income.

Not saying its right or even that its the best option, but its certainly understandable.

Re: I almost got hacked by a 'job interview'

#492

Post by jchw »

fragmede wrote: post #469
jchw wrote: post #374

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well, why don't you practice what you preach? There's no need to make drive-by allegations if there is information available to you. And there is: the author responded in this thread. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45594554 There's no need to be contrarian. The accusation wasn't baseless.

Gee, what got your tensors all in a twist? I thought everyone was supposed to just brush off being called AI? (Also https://amp.knowyourmeme.com/memes/this-looks-shopped ) Regardless, you're reading a lot of things into my comment that aren't actually there, but even if they are, I certainly didn't mean them that way. My comment wasn't about comments where someone sat down and thought about it and took the time to gi…

> Gee, what got your tensors all in a twist? I thought everyone was supposed to just brush off being called AI?

Well, first of all, I said that being accused of using AI assistance must be "incredibly disheartening". If you read my post and really came away with the opinion that I think being accused of using AI assistance is not a big deal, well, dunno what to say, I pretty much said the exact opposite.

But second of all, I wasn't expressing my offense at the joke you made, and despite what I just said, I basically don't personally care about being accused of using AI assistance to write. I already write weird: I use semicolons pretty frequently in long paragraphs, and sometimes I even use em dashes—though unlike what I've seen from ChatGPT output, I don't tend to add spaces around it. I think I write weird enough that nobody would seriously mistake my text for being AI-generated, especially because to be honest, it's not particularly good. I don't have insecurity about the humanity of the text I write; I've written an inordinate amount of comments on this site, many prior to GPT-2 existing, and they're all probably pretty stylistically consistent, so I think I'm somewhat grandfathered in.

What I was expressing was disappointment that you came around to scold people for making baseless accusations when, in my opinion, the accusations were in fact not baseless. You questioned how "thoroughly" they read the piece. Well, I mean, I read the entire piece, it wasn't that long, and I came away agreeing with the comment I ultimately replied to. I'm definitely more offended by the idea of being accused of having made a baseless accusation than the idea that my text was actually written by ChatGPT or Gemini or something.

> (Also https://amp.knowyourmeme.com/memes/this-looks-shopped)

Yes, I know. It's an old meme by Internet standards, but not one I would forget easily.

> My comment wasn't about comments where someone sat down and thought about it and took the time to give reasons for their beliefs, it was about comments like https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45596745 that do nothing for the discussion, so that receiving one like that can be dismissed without a second thought.

Look, when someone replies bluntly to me, I tend to reply bluntly back. I get that you added some memes and an xkcd reference, but I still took your comment to be rather blunt due to what it was insinuating about me and the person I was replying to. I'm not foaming at the mouth or anything, it's totally fine. (You know, "please dont put in the newspaper that i got mad.") With that having been said: you really have to acknowledge the fact that it's not fair to get mad at me for reading your comment in the context of the comment you actually replied to (mine) rather than the comment someone else made in a different part of the thread that you didn't. I know that replying higher up the comment stack is kind of important if you want your comment to actually be read by anyone on HN, but if that results in your comment being in the completely wrong place, you can't get too mad at people for being baffled by it.

If what you wanted to do was reply to a comment you thought was not constructive, then you should've picked one, or perhaps simply flagged it. I realize there's little to no satisfaction in flagging a comment, but if you really think it isn't productive, it's the best way to vote for that.

Re: I almost got hacked by a 'job interview'

#493

Post by surprisetrex »

DavidDodda wrote: post #68
nubg wrote: post #9

This article was written by an LLM. I get that the author might be self-conscious about his English writing skills, but I would still much rather read the original prompt that the author put into ChatGPT, instead of the slop that came out. The story - if true - is very interesting of course. Big bummer therefore that the author decided to sloppify it. David, could you share as a response to this comment the original…

thanks for the feedback. just fyi - this went though 11 different versions before reaching this point. so I am not able to share the full chat because i used Claude with google docs integration. but hears the google doc i started with https://docs.google.com/document/d/1of_uWXw-CppnFtWoehIrr1ir... this and the following prompt ``` 'help me turn this into a blog post. keep things interesting, also make sure you take a…

Honestly yeah, the Google Doc has all of the relevant info in it and is about 1/4 the length.

The LLM doesn’t know anything you didn’t tell it about this scenario, so all it does is add more words to say the same thing, while losing your authorial voice in the process.

I guess to put it a bit too bluntly: if you can’t be bothered writing it, what makes you think people should bother reading it?

Re: I almost got hacked by a 'job interview'

#494

Post by rustystump »

raw_anon_1111 wrote: post #483
blharr wrote: post #481

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Could I tell if the last one is AI? Absolutely. Throwing a few "damns" in there didn't convince me. And all the reworking you've done, while it makes it a little more passable, has made it arguably worse in quality. The point of the final article is so muddy. It has no central point and sprawls on and on about random nonsense.

I agree and I said as much With some human editing to make it sound less douchery or better prompting, do you think you could tell? In other words - I did no human editing or even played with the prompt. For instance, I would have definitely reworded this “a solid meeting isn’t just about not screwing up the logistics. It’s a snapshot of how your team actually operate” The “it isn’t just $x. It is $y” is something th…

But it isnt. Why use more word when few do trick? Ai is god awful at sounding authentic and surprise surprise, authenticity is easy to sus out.

AI has a voice in writing which youd need to almost completely rewrite every word to remove at which point, why use ai?

Re: I almost got hacked by a 'job interview'

#495

Post by arendtio »

nubg wrote: post #9

This article was written by an LLM. I get that the author might be self-conscious about his English writing skills, but I would still much rather read the original prompt that the author put into ChatGPT, instead of the slop that came out. The story - if true - is very interesting of course. Big bummer therefore that the author decided to sloppify it. David, could you share as a response to this comment the original…

Funny, first I thought I liked the brief style. Then I thought sounds very much like an AI.

And when I read the Google doc, I understood, that I would have preferred the Google doc as well :-D

Re: I almost got hacked by a 'job interview'

#496

Post by helentoomik »

kenjackson wrote: post #390
tempestn wrote: post #283

Earlier quoted context omitted.

FYI in case you decide to write without the AI more, "setup" and "checkout" are nouns. If you're using them as verbs, they are two words, "set up" and "check out". You can remember which is which based on whether it would make sense to put another word between them, ie. "set it up" or "check something out", vs "the setup of the document" or "a fresh checkout of this branch".

Is this generally a way to determine when to split a compound word?

In these cases, where the term is made up of a combination of a simple verb (set, break, shut, log) plus a preposition (in, up, down, out, off, etc): if it's a verb, it's two words. If it's a noun, it's one word.

Another way to look at it: the verb doesn't magically grow together and apart if you use it in different tenses (past, present, future). "I am setting up" (present) is two words - therefore the "set up" in "I set up a script yesterday" and "I did not set up" also needs to be two words.

Re: I almost got hacked by a 'job interview'

#497

Post by sigmoid10 »

croes wrote: post #401
sigmoid10 wrote: post #95

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You'd have to write the standard libraries and OS as well. Not that it can't be done, but let's just say that people who tried that did not fare well in the mental health department.

If you don’t trust the standard libraries and the OS you can’t trust the sandboxed either

If you go down this road there also isn't really much need to write anything yourself. After all, you'll be much more likely to include exploitable bugs yourself once you start messing with things you are not an expert in. So neither way is a good solution.

Re: I almost got hacked by a 'job interview'

#498

Post by LordDragonfang »

whatamidoingyo wrote: post #14
nubg wrote: post #9

This article was written by an LLM. I get that the author might be self-conscious about his English writing skills, but I would still much rather read the original prompt that the author put into ChatGPT, instead of the slop that came out. The story - if true - is very interesting of course. Big bummer therefore that the author decided to sloppify it. David, could you share as a response to this comment the original…

It didn't seem LLM-written to me until "The Operation" section. After that... yeah, hi, ChatGPT. Still an interesting story, even if an LLM was used to finish it up, lol.

I think that's because up until "The Operation", it's basically just paraphrasing the input. "The Operation" is the exact point it finishes doing that and - no longer having as much guidance - decides to start spinning its wheels making up needless, ling winded slop.
Post reply on HN