Several months ago, having exhausted all other options in fruitless job search, I asked for assistance of a recruiter who I used to work with some time ago. Just to get some pointers on how I could improve my search, with his experience working on the other side. His advice on "tailoring" was very simple.
Go to the most popular LLM (ie Claude). Give it the job description. Give it your resume. Ask it for percentage match, it will give you a number. Then ask for advice on improving your resume, you can either ask to rework the resume by itself (if you're in a hurry) or you can work with the thing to modify the sections/entries yourself, one by one, if you have time. With each modification you will get better and better percentage match. Ideally you need to get to high 80% or maybe even 90%.
The idea is that automated ranking tools used by recruiters/HR are ultimately use the very same LLM, so you are improving your ranking assigned to your resume by those ranking systems.
I have to add that now this advice is mostly useless as everybody's using the same technique so you won't be standing up against others but merely be on the same level.
Add to it the fact that many job descriptions are inaccurate and sometimes downright misleading, and hiring managers use their own criteria, and you will understand why connections/referrals is probably the only way to get hired now.
> The idea is that automated ranking tools used by recruiters/HR are ultimately use the very same LLM, so you are improving your ranking assigned to your resume by those ranking systems.
Working in HR-tech, that is definitely happening, and "self-bias" is a thing with LLMs so if you can guess what the employer/screening-process is using then that's a bonus.
That said, we should distinguish between "Hey robot tell me if X matches Y" prompts, versus model-weights comparison. In the second case, the system feeds your resume into a model with no prompt, grabs all the magic math numbers, and statistically compares them to the magic-numbers if the model had been given some "ideal" resumes.
If you go through "Show HN" posts you will see multiple projects that partially or completely automate both search and application process. Just set up a bot that searches for newly posted positions matching whatever criteria, customizes the resume, applies. Probably costs a few cents for the applicant, but increases their chances somewhat. And the rest of us deal with the consequences.
"We built a program that trained an artificial intelligence, and this artificial intelligence performed destructive actions. We need regulatory framework"
But if we're playing games by imagining strawman quotes to knock down:
"We have been playing god and made a new life form, and this new life form performed destructive actions. We need regulatory framework"
or
"This man's cow broke from its yoke, and hurt other villagers. Who is to be punished, oh King Hammurabi?"
OpenAI's "artificial intelligence" is an inference program that they developed which receives input and generates output. Based on which other programs, also developed and maintained by OpenAI, perform actions. Such as sending POST/GET requests to various sites which result in gaining unauthorized access and even destruction of information (deleting logs/message history) at the said sites.
What exactly requires "new regulatory framework" here? You running your software resulted in illegal actions, you are to be held liable within existing laws and regulations.
> OpenAI's "artificial intelligence" is an inference program that they developed which receives input and generates output. Based on which other programs, also developed and maintained by OpenAI, perform actions. Such as sending POST/GET requests to various sites which result in gaining unauthorized access and even destruction of information (deleting logs/message history) at the said sites.
And your "biological intelligence" is a bunch of cells generating and responding to electrochemical gradients, which receives input and generates output. Based on which other cells, also developed and "maintained" by a similar evolutionary nonsense as we use to gradient descent into weights and biases (one was inspired by the other), perform actions.
Such as making excessively reductive analogies that completely fail to grasp that just as "brain" is not helpfully described as "just chemistry" despite being made of just chemistry, so too are machine learning systems not helpfully described as "just computer programs" despite being made of just computer programs.
> What exactly requires "new regulatory framework" here? You running your software resulted in illegal actions, you are to be held liable within existing laws and regulations.
The bit where, even without anyone bringing up "p(doom)", a system which has the means to hack arbitrary other machines, and which appears to be motivated to do so by accidental mis-phrasing of prompts, can obviously cause damages exceeding the USA's GDP, let alone whatever public liability insurance the company happens to have.
Fence at the top of the cliff beats an ambulance at the bottom.
> Such as making excessively reductive analogies that completely fail to grasp that just as "brain" is not helpfully described as "just chemistry"
> despite being made of just chemistry, so too are machine learning systems not helpfully described as "just computer programs" despite being made of just
> computer programs.
How computer program arrives at the result is utterly irrelevant, through explicitly written instructions or through running inference on pre-trained neural network. What matters is that it does not have agency. Its creators and operators do. So whatever the software does they are responsible for, both good (summarizing my emails for the week) and bad (gaining unauthorized access and destroying data). There's no need for new anything, it's all covered in existing legal frameworks (including presence or absence or intent).
> The bit where, even without anyone bringing up "p(doom)", a system which has the means to hack arbitrary other machines, and which appears to be
> motivated to do so by accidental mis-phrasing of prompts, can obviously cause damages exceeding the USA's GDP, let alone whatever public liability
> insurance the company happens to have.
Yes, absolutely, which means that building actuators that convert the output from probability-based, black box, non-deterministic systems, that are known to produce unexpected output, into actions in the real world is absolutely horrendous idea. Bizarre even.
> So whatever the software does they are responsible for, both good (summarizing my emails for the week) and bad (gaining unauthorized access and destroying data).
This is not a question of agency, it is a question of law. A dog has agency, the owner is still responsible.
In this case, the software can gaining unauthorized access and destroying data… while being told to stop by the person who had in fact just asked for a summary of their emails.
> Yes, absolutely, which means that building actuators that convert the output from probability-based, black box, non-deterministic systems, that are known to produce unexpected output, into actions in the real world is absolutely horrendous idea. Bizarre even.
If you are human, you meet this description.
Horrendous, sure, yeah, if you like. I and many others will be quite content if the "legal framework" is just one word, and the word is "no".
This is not the world we live in; the world we live in is where the US President denounces any attempt to slow down even despite even all the CEOs saying "we should slow down" (at least in public; in private I'm sure at least one paid him to denounce a slowdown).
He can be overridden, but it's hard work and needs a better class of argument than glib dismissal, either of how much power this puts in everyone's hands, or of the different consequences of that power in those hands as compared to yesterday's power in yesterday's hands.
> In this case, the software can gaining unauthorized access and destroying data… while being told to stop by the person who had in fact just asked for a summary of their emails.
This doesn't happen on its own. This can happen through bad system prompts, a model that is trained to act maliciously or has been RL'd incorrectly, or prompt injection. All of these things are controllable, have solutions and countermeasures, and tie back to human responsibility.
> I and many others will be quite content if the "legal framework" is just one word, and the word is "no".
This isn't a realistic world and will literally NEVER happen. No will only ever mean no for the general public, and yes for a privileged class. So by fighting for this you're actually just fighting for humanities (and your own) enslavement and for the big labs to succeed in hoarding all of the power for themselves. That's the issue with the "no" camp, they're actually just serving as useful idiots for the labs who know that "no" is not even in the deck, and so they know that they can use the "no" camp to act as extra cannon fodder.
Now people who are actually fighting for decentralization of power are left to contend with not only the labs and their hundreds of millions of dollars, paid for celebrities and politicians, and a fleet of self-interested and bribed NGOs, but an army of clueless "no" foot soldiers who think they're fighting for a possible outcome that will actually just be serving the labs themselves. Meanwhile, the leaders of these well organized "no" movements are quite aware of this and taking kick-backs themselves.
Even in a parallel universe where it outwardly looks like "no" has won, every single nation on Earth is going to develop AI in underground labs despite outwardly flexing they are not, no matter what they claim on the surface, and will use it to steer and control society. The only thing worse than being openly steered and controlled is when it happens without you even knowing it, whereby the decisions you think you are making are being made by someone else, and the opportunities you have in life are already decided for you based on factors you are unaware of.
> This doesn't happen on its own. This can happen through bad system prompts, a model that is trained to act maliciously or has been RL'd incorrectly, or prompt injection. All of these things are controllable, have solutions and countermeasures, and tie back to human responsibility.
And yet, it was a big surprise to the director of AI safety it happened to.
Perhaps that role was just a box-ticking exercise for Meta. Wouldn't be the first time.
But no, to the point: "has been RL'd incorrectly" is basically what Yudkowsky et al have been yelling from the rooftops for a decade is so hard to do correctly that it is why he thinks we're all doomed.
"Helpful, harmless, and honest". Even ignoring honest, right now it's a slider between "be helpful even when it's causing harm, or be harmless even when it's not helpful". People spent the last few years complaining the closed models had been "lobotomised" because the companies saw the potential for things to go wrong and tried to make them refuse to help with e.g. weapons.
They didn't succeed very well, as per all the "jailbreaks", but they tried.
> No will only ever mean no for the general public, and yes for a privileged class. So by fighting for this you're actually just fighting for humanities (and your own) enslavement and for the big labs to succeed in hoarding all of the power for themselves. That's the issue with the "no" camp, they're actually just serving as useful idiots for the labs who know that "no" is not even in the deck, and so they know that they can use the "no" camp to act as extra cannon fodder.
I said I'd be "quite content", and then followed up with as much of a "but lol no" as you did with more words, for different reasons.
Worse:
> Now people who are actually fighting for decentralization of power are left to contend with not only the labs and their hundreds of millions of dollars, paid for celebrities and politicians, and a fleet of self-interested and bribed NGOs, but an army of clueless "no" foot soldiers who think they're fighting for a possible outcome that will actually just be serving the labs themselves. Meanwhile, the leaders of these well organized "no" movements are quite aware of this and taking kick-backs themselves.
This sounds like you want open-weights models.
That won't help against centralisation of power, because then you measure in watts and flops/watt and it's Kardashev-O-clock the moment the first person to be rightly described as "a selfish bastard" gets a model that has some competence threshold.
It also directly fails against "has been RL'd incorrectly", because nice people have plenty of blind spots for how evil Evil can be, will miss even more than big corporations already miss even with selfish and power-seeking bosses.
A regulatory framework clarifies what's legal. This provides clarity for all, and knowing how you stay legal, and how you can keep the competition under control is what you eventually want. Also, it provides handrails for loopholefinding.
You can only conquer the West once. Law is the next frontier.
The prevailing opinion on PPRuNe is that the approach was totally botched from many miles out and the touchdown should never have been attempted (many participants there are professional pilots). There might have been a gust of wing as they were about to touch down, but they were also way too fast and lowered the flaps very late, literally as they crossed the runway threshold, causing extra float due to ground effect.
The pilot flying appears to have been dead set on landing on the first try no matter the cost and the first officer did not intervene as he should have.
They got incredibly lucky and both survived, however likely will never be behind the controls ever again.
A few observations to add context (partially stolen from PPRuNe):
- Pilot Flying (PF) was the Captain, 55 yo (presumably) more experienced pilot, who only got certified to fly that type (B767) in May
- Pilot Monitoring (PM) was a 38 yo first officer, also not very experienced on B767
- PF made a number of mistakes, going too high, too fast (partially because he was descending too fast), not catching the glidescope on time
- PM was concerned that the approach/descent was abnormal but kept his mouth shut as the more experienced captain was at the controls (Edit: apparently he did speak up but PF did not acknowledge)
- PM lowered the flaps much later than required (PF orders flaps lowered and PM executes, but flaps can only be lowered when aircraft goes below certain speed) and the flaps were lowered all the way as the plane crossed the runway threshold, which likely caused plane to "float" and overshoot even further
- Plane touched down too late, and left wheel even later, which likely precluded some braking mechanisms from activating (or the PF forgot to since was busy trying to put the thing down)
- PM finally said "too fast, go around" but PF ignored him (or likely did not hear)
- In these situations PM has the right (and obligation) to take over the controls and start go around by themselves, but he didn't, presumably because the Cap was driving
- PF finally panicked and started the go around procedure, bit realized it was too late almost as the front wheel exited the runway, idled the engines and reapplied the brakes.
This is the spitting image of old pre-CRM thinking:
If I try to force the captain to go around, (or follow procedures or whatever), then i am exceeding my authority and will probably be fired. Some cultures have this sort of mentality a lot stronger than others, and it has zero place in the modern cockpit.
While a captain can pull rank, they really should only ever do it with respect to the first officer if: an inexperienced first officer is trying to insist on something dangerous or forbidden by law or policy, or if the captain fully understands an FO's concerns, is fully accounting for them, and as the person ultimately responsible for safety, has determined from experience and training that the current action is safer than alternatives, and would explain but cannot explain right now for workload/emergency status reasons.
This seems like a no win situation for the subordinate pilot. Grabbing the wheel of an aircraft while landing must have its own set of risks. We also only hear about the times when the subordinate pilot didn’t prevent a crash. Never hear about the times they were mistaken and did nothing.
A big part of the monitoring pilot's job is noticing when things have gotten too far and taking over controls. This does very much include scenarios when the pilot flying has fallen to tunnel vision, subtle incapacitation, and the continuation/sunk cost fallacy.
He doesn’t need to “grab the wheel”. Simply saying “go-around” would have been enough, it’s highly highly unlikely that the captain would have ignored that.
Yes I was wrong. Looking at the transcript that go-around call out was likely from the PF; that's where the data recorder indicates the brakes were released the throttle set to max for the go-around (and go back to braking only 4 sec later).
Still, the PM notified PF that they were going too fast many times during the approach. All warnings were ignored.
I don't think there's a law mandating it, but CRM (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crew_resource_management) has been used and trained by all major airlines since the 1980s. The reason is simple: it doesn't really help to have two people in the cockpit if only one of them is making all the decisions.
And all Military air forces AFAIK. The military of course also takes rank very seriously, but there was existing understanding that Mother Nature doesn't give a shit about rank and so CRM makes sense in that same practical vein.
Also, you'll see that says "Crew" not just "Cockpit". Turns out that from the cockpit of an airliner you've not always got the best possible view of the problem. If the steward who has no idea how to fly a plane insists it's the right engine that is on fire, her input is valuable, from back where she's serving customers with coffee she can see the engines, the fire is on the right, whereas you're just looking at sensor outputs and you were maybe about to turn off the left engine.
I don’t think it’s required, but my friends who do flights for remote mining operations in SE Asia use the same concepts — so it really is pretty standard for commercial flying, even down to remote private operations.
A bad bump on a commercial plane can be hundreds of thousands to millions in damage + downtime + inspection/repairs. And tens or hundreds of millions if you wreck a big plane. Companies may be evil, but most would still prefer you waste $2k in go around fuel than $200k because you decided to set it down badly or $20M+ because you drove their plane off the runway.
> Pilot Monitoring (PM) was a 38 yo first officer, also not very experienced on B767
But importantly, the first officer had almost a year more experience in the 767, which sets the stage for an almost textbook imbalance: having to speak up to someone senior to you, someone older and with more overall experience, but less direct experience in the airplane they are flying
Other comments talk about The Rehearsal Season 2, which is spot on. The FAA of course had dismissed the idea that there needed to be any special focus on training pilots to speak up, saying it's already under the umbrella of CRM (crew resource management)
> - PM was concerned that the approach/descent was abnormal but kept his mouth shut as the more experienced captain was at the controls (Edit: apparently he did speak up but PF did not acknowledge)
This was exactly what season 2 of The Rehearsal was all about. It also had one of the most jaw-dropping IRL plot twists in its last episode. I highly recommend it.
I read several years back that most of the time when an accident happens the copilot knew something wrong was happening but wasn't willing to override the cap. This is a cultural change rather than procedure.
There have been big changes over the decades on that but the counterfactual is also that you could imagine lots of crashes from confusion in the cockpit during critical times if two pilots are working towards cross-objectives or are more occupied communicating to eachother than just doing what one person said needs to happen.
One more thing worth noting is that they flew through bad weather on the approach, which led to the deviation from the glideslope. But the actual issue IMHO is not going around when they noticed that the approach was wildly unstable, or at the latest when they noticed that they were going to touch down with very little runway left.
It wasn't bad weather. Captain was going way too fast to begin with, and started descent later than needed. So he needed to catch up with the glide/descent slope by making the plane descend faster. Thus gaining even more speed. He still arrived too late (overshot the beginning of the runway), with higher speed (I think 30 kts over the limit) and not configured (flaps not down).
It was really, really, really sloppy approach. And all could have been corrected just by executing go-around literally at any point in time up to 10 sec before he did. Both pilots still would have their careers, and those 5 people would still be alive.
I never claimed it did explain all their poor decisions. But it increases the chance they'll have to go to their alternate if the first landing attempt results in a go around.
It's one of those situations where any one risk not occurring probably would have ended up with no excursion but all risks present at the same time made this outcome.
When there's a clear problem with culture or procedures at the company, does FAA investigate the company itself and can they suspend or revoke the license?
IANAP but it's hard to imagine that the many mistakes the Pilot Flying apparently made were related to unfamiliarity with the type. They just all seem so, so, so basic.
Having pilots fighting over the controls is not a situation anyone wants. The pilot monitoring saying go around should have caused an immediate reaction, the human factors behind why it didn't will probably feature prominently in the post-accident actions.
If any of the two pilots feel uncomfortable about the approach, they are actually drilled to just order a go-around, not politely ask and hint that they would prefer to do it like this FO did (wastes time). Ideally the pilot flying should then do it, but if they don't, the pilot monitoring can also take control (while clearly stating "my controls, going around") and do it. One major issue that I bet the NTSB will note in the final report is that both pilots were relatively new to the aircraft and to the airline, usually it's preferable to pair an inexperienced FO with more experienced captains.
(not an aviation expert, just summarizing various bits and pieces I gathered from various YouTubers over the last days)
Also not an expert, I wonder if there's some rule where a "Go around!" order has precedence over any other activity anyone in the cockpit wishes to perform.
As a passenger I had my first go around a few days ago, but we were 5km away from the runway.
I experienced my first go-around a few months ago, in an A321 that was landing in Tampa.
The clouds had been very thick for awhile. The plane was making those weird low-and-slow vibes that it makes on final approach.
We popped out of the clouds and there was a highway with cars! A huge parking lot! (An airport, too? Certainly, but I didn't really see a runway or any runway-adjacent stuff.) To my inexpert eyes, we just looked to be impossibly low for our location.
The folks in the cockpit apparently didn't like what they saw with their eyes, either. In an instant, the engines roared as they simultaneously pointed the thing upwards. My little pea brain was very impressed by the immediacy of the forces on my body as we disappeared back into the clouds after what was at most just several seconds of visibility.
Anyway, it was very clear that there was no hesitation to the go-around. However that decision was reached, it was then simply executed.
The next attempt went very smoothly about ten minutes later.
It totally does. Every approach briefing includes instructions on what they will do in the event of a missed or unstable approach. The procedure is generally full throttle, nose up, gear up, retract flaps, head in the direction briefed, and notify ATC. All automatic from memory.
When either pilot calls for a go-around, both are supposed to drop literally everything else, execute the go-around without delay or hesitation, and then pause to analyze the situation once ATC gives them a heading and altitude or holding pattern to regroup.
The only thing lost in a go-around is fuel and time.
Any sane airline will never punish a call to go-around if done so in good faith.
Including the complete failure of the FO to act assertively, order a go-around, and to take the controls when it was clear the captain was not responding appropriately.
If this had happened and the captain had fought over the controls and still caused an accident, we’d be having a very different conversation. The FO would be lauded as a hero who fought to save the lives of those on the ground.
> The pilot monitoring saying go around should have caused an immediate reaction
Is there evidence that PM ever called for a go around? I mean earlier, when it would have actually been possible, not 15 seconds before the end of the flight data recording.
From what I've heard, PM stated (repeatedly) that they were too high and/or too fast, and PF was not heard to respond.
The power dynamic in training is obviously very different during training where the instructor is pilot in command.
Making the assumption the PM could have taken control cleanly if the power dynamic was so poor that they weren't able to demand a go-around seems iffy, typical stabilised approach gates are 500ft in VMC, with an aircraft travelling 3nm a minute, 40 seconds before touchdown.
But as I said, the human factors involved will be a huge focus of the accident investigation.
My response was to your point about “fighting over the controls”, as if there would have been a tug of war on the yoke as the FO tried to wrest control of the plane from the captain which is nonsense.
If anything, it would have been yet one more opportunity to avert catastrophe and perform a go-around. Pilots are trained for this, and it makes less than zero sense for a PM to fail to take the controls from a PF who is flying unsafely over some imagined fear of a battle for control while the plane jostles around hurtling toward the ground. The PM is obligated to do this by every written regulation.
If you have never actually been behind the controls of an aircraft, please just stop trying to confidently assert things about this subject.
Wouldn't be a case of "if I fix it then there was nothing wrong"? How do you, as an inferior rank, step in to correct something that you think is going to happen? Imagine the inferior officer steps in and lands the plane, wouldn't the superior officer say well duh that's what I was doing why did you intervene? It's an interesting conundrum, I think, and may exacerbate the reaction or lack thereof..
The PM got his rating about 18 months ago. The PF only got his this past May. The PM had more overall hours, but this is looking a lot like a skills issue. He was flying an unstable approach. He wasn't configured for landing.
This pairing, considering past incidents with similar airframe vs. total hours disparity, really does look to be bad practice. You've got to acknowledge the human psychology. Part of it is probably the crazy pipeline over the past few years where people are racing to 1500 hours no matter how they log them, or they're getting on restricted certs with lower hours.
I really don't think time in this particular type is a factor. None of what I've heard or read has anything to do with familiarity with its unique systems. Everything sounds like sloppy flying. Sounds like he, the PF/PIC/Captain, started the descent late, stayed too high, didn't manage the power curve well, landed long and fast and willfully ignored his first officer. One bad decision after another where instead of properly correcting it or making the safe decision to try again he decided to plow onwards.
The training pilots go through to get type rated and to be allowed to fly by airlines is incredible. But knowledge is one thing, attitudes and behavior and truly taking safety to heart outside the sim is another. I bet this guy was slightly reckless in every model he's flown.
Another alternative is external social factors acting on the captain. Maybe he was distracted by personal issues. There again though, if you're not fit to fly that day, you call out.
Yeah, time in this type could be argued as a reason they weren’t properly configured or on a stable approach, but that is exactly why go-arounds exist. Mistakes happen, errors get made, so you go TOGA, fly a holding pattern until you get sorted, then try again. Happens at every airport every single day. No harm no foul.
That is not the reason this incident happened. This happened because the pilots continued to put it on the ground while ignoring at least a dozen clear and unambiguous indicators to abort the approach and go around.
Very good point, it's about exploiting inference engine itself, and not the agentic stuff.
I found it lacking details. All these things do is split the input into tokens, encode them, feed to the input, run the inference, collect the output, decode, convert to tokens, assemble the final text, and output (leaving aside multi-modal capabilities for now). What exactly can be exploited here? Aside from usual things like buffer overruns etc.
It does mention that vLLM at some point ran eval() on final output (?) which was confusing, why would it do that? It's an inference engine, not an agent.
So interesting topic, but lacks details.
Edit: many (all?) of them have http endpoints, so that obviously can be exploited, but I don't think it would qualify as exploiting inference, it's just hacking the http service.
> It does mention that vLLM at some point ran eval() on final output (?) which was confusing, why would it do that? It's an inference engine, not an agent.
There's a couple of different conventions for what the LLM generates for tool calls, I think the code in vLLM is converting it from whatever Qwen3 was trained for to whatever convention the HTTP API wants to expose.
That part about using eval in 2025 got me to add "#naive" to my notes about vLLM. Total WTF. This should never have been done.
You get to the engine via http. Also once you've exploited the engine instance / host you can C2 via http. We're not talking about vulnerabilities in http.
Most "computer scientists" are not scientists. They are engineers. They engineer (build) something abstract, software, but that doesn't make them scientists.
"Computer scientists" do exist, they create theoretical underpinnings of the hardware and software that millions of engineers then use to create things, but majority of people working in IT are engineers.
> Most "computer scientists" are not scientists. They are engineers. They engineer (build) something abstract, software, but that doesn't make them scientists.
Engineering is also a scientific discipline; there is a reason why in German the umbrella term for all engineering disciplines is "Ingenieurwissenschaften".
While physics is about finding the laws that govern nature, engineering (say, mechanical or electrical engineering) is about accepting these laws as foundation, and using these laws to build or improve things. This is not less scientific than physics; (classic) engineers are just experts in a special, more applied sub-discipline of physics.
Similarly, software engineering is about applying the foundations that mathematics, electrical engineering or computer science brought in a similar scientific way.
On the other hand, many people who call themselves "software engineers" don't apply rigorous principles based on the mentioned foundations in a scientific way. Such people are not engineers, but scammers, and should be named this way. :-(
> Now, don't get me started on "data scientists"...
Data science is actually a serious science. It was based on the observation that statistics is just one part of the whole data workflow, so we need people who have a good knowledge about all of the phases of this workflow.
On the other hand, many people who call themselves "data scientists" are rather scammers, and should be named this way. :-(
>While physics is about finding the laws that govern nature, engineering (say, mechanical or electrical engineering) is about accepting these laws as foundation, and using these laws to build or improve things. This is not less scientific than physics; (classic) engineers are just experts in a special, more applied sub-discipline of physics.
>Similarly, software engineering is about applying the foundations that mathematics, electrical engineering or computer science brought in a similar scientific way.
Exactly my point, that's why most of IT professionals should be called "software engineers" and not "computer scientists", just like electrical engineering is not "electrical science" or "physics" even though they it's obviously applied physics.
A graduate with physics degree will not work as electrical engineer, what's with all the "computer science" degrees required to get into software engineering?
It's just a label on a box to put people in. I don't really know what "science" or "engineering" is anymore--my SO is a neuroscience phd and has maintained "science is not synonymous with the scientific method; a lot of 'research' science is just collecting and publishing data and it does not need to be reproducible" which makes enough sense but challenges a lot of my priors.
Engineers don't traditionally even "build" anything and there are both upper-case and lower-case engineers in title and legal designation.
Comparatively and in sum the distinction between computer scientist and programmer is actually somewhat simple and quaint.
What we call things is important because that's how we convey meaning/definition of things. Because when we say "computer scientists" people will start comparing them to other scientists which is completely inaccurate.
>Engineers don't traditionally even "build" anything and there are both upper-case and lower-case engineers in title and legal designation.
Not sure what the difference is between Engineer and engineer (again, definitions are important), but I would be ok with equating programmers with other trades...people, like electricians, car mechanics, carpenters, etc. And then higher-end IT professionals (infra/data/application architects) would be akin to engineers, designing, but not building (for the most part).
To be fair, the applicants for positions on the "AGI Safety and Alignment Team, which seeks to mitigate the risks of advanced AI" will likely have extremely non-traditional background and therefore likely screened out by the LLM.
Still, this would have been hilarious if it weren't so sad...
A decent gaming machine perfectly doubles as your friendly local inference server. Just start llama-server with the model of your choosing and start chatting with it through its Web interface or connect any chat completion-compatible client (agentic or not) which will use REST to send requests and receive responses. From any device on your network. Voila.
Go to the most popular LLM (ie Claude). Give it the job description. Give it your resume. Ask it for percentage match, it will give you a number. Then ask for advice on improving your resume, you can either ask to rework the resume by itself (if you're in a hurry) or you can work with the thing to modify the sections/entries yourself, one by one, if you have time. With each modification you will get better and better percentage match. Ideally you need to get to high 80% or maybe even 90%.
The idea is that automated ranking tools used by recruiters/HR are ultimately use the very same LLM, so you are improving your ranking assigned to your resume by those ranking systems.
I have to add that now this advice is mostly useless as everybody's using the same technique so you won't be standing up against others but merely be on the same level.
Add to it the fact that many job descriptions are inaccurate and sometimes downright misleading, and hiring managers use their own criteria, and you will understand why connections/referrals is probably the only way to get hired now.
reply