The author then postulates some guidance for how to survive in organisations more generally, working above these strange social structures largely unique to silicon valley. It wasn't the purpose of the article, but I wish he was a bit more critical of these structures in general.
I think the writing style the LLM produces is an artistic decision made by committee prioritizing for inoffensiveness - what a coincidence that it comes out sounding like LinkedIn slop.
I don't really see any innate reason an LLM couldn't write well - it's an active decision by its creators to tell it not to.
Dead Comment
In Australia, we went through a similar journey where fiber to everyone's home was planned and then politically destroyed. Except this happened in 2010 and has been a significant factor in our inability to retain a technical edge.
This is the weirdest technology market that I’ve seen. Researchers are getting rewarded with VC money to try what remains a science experiment. That used to be a bad word and now that gets rewarded with billions of dollars in valuation.
Instead the author posited a point about pluralizing nouns.
This is the Californian ideology - do not engage with fucking anything at all, because we're all getting rich off pluralizing nouns.
My favourite use-case: our sales and support folks systematically ask DWAINE (our dwh agent) to produce a report before important meetings with customers, something along the lines of: "I'm meeting with <customer_name> for a QBR, what do I need to know?". This will pull usage data, support interactions, billing, and many other dimensions, and you can guess that the quality of the conversation is greatly improved.
My colleague Dmitry wrote about it when we first deployed it: https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/bi-dead-change-my-mind-dmitry...
We have a similar experience where it's shocking how much users prefer the chat interface.
The nash equilibrium in a buyer-seller market like the employer-employee relationship is for both sides to defect. Humans don't behave optimally, because they aren't pure rational creatures, they are imbued with some socialisation and cultural memory. So humans try to treat with these organisations as though they are other humans, and will respond to good-will with good-will, but this is not rewarded, and ultimately they change their behaviour in response to a poor environment.
Capital does behave short term optimally. Optimal economic behaviour is to betray the person opposite you, and violate and exploit the commons until the commons collapses entirely, like what we see today. At some points in the past, capital has been subdued by a human operator who will apply courtesy and social norms to prevent these ugly actions, but capital has now become too intelligent to bother with this, and the result is a sequence of increasingly insane and inhuman processes, such as what we see here with the job market.