Yup, half of that thought-leader crap on LinkedIn is indeed AI scribbled If you've spent much time on LinkedIn, you've probably run into self-congratulatory posts, tips on how to maximize your "grindset," and other business lessons from alleged thought leaders. It's tiring, but a study of such posts has pulled the curtain off the wizard: More than half of such posts are written by AI. You know the …
I’ve got way better things to do with my time than read the crap that gets posted on LinkedIn. Besides, the last thing I read there was some shite, purporting to be scientifically backed up (in which case, cite), claiming that global warming is nothing to worry about and renewable energy is pointless. It didn’t read as if it was AI generated - so either AI still has a way to go to be as stupid as humans or AI is now even stupider than I thought it was (which is oddly comforting - I’ll have a job a while longer!)
If you're talking about the person I think you might be, he was a twat salesman whose modus operandi was to work at a company for a while and move on just as he was being rumbled as a twat.
Worked with him in the '80s and again in the later '90s (IIRC - I've been asleep from time to time since then) . I think he might be retired now but he's still posting the utter bollocks you described onto Lunkhead In.
I think you just described every single salesman I've ever met. Can you be more specific?
Just remember, the "Type-A" personality is named that way, because it's the first one they came up with, and as such, it's missing vital features, and doesn't work properly.
note - personality "types" have, of course, been thoroughly discredited, once it was revealed that they were invented by the tobacco industry as a marketing ploy. What I'm really referring to here is the tendency for salespeople to exhibit traits of narcissistic personality disorder, because lying to people for a living is pretty much a natural fit for a narcissist. "Type-A" is a nice shorthand for this, though, and I shall continue to use it.
LinkedIn is just insufferable useless sludge even when not written by AI. Anyone who po-faced calls themselves a 'thought leader' is by definition a vapid berk. I suspect the LLM even writes better garbage.
Well, I guess this steps up the overflowing quantity of sewage even though it likely doesn't diminish the quality on average.
I'm a "thought leader". I think, then I do stuff.
Usually a better outcome then being a "thought follower" - and since that following thought is often "oh, shit", it means I could probably optimise that down to "thought less", which even I'd agree with.
But my head is noisy enough inside that I'd never be "thought less". Much more likely to be "thought what the hell do you mean 'juicy yellow paean', those words don't go!" and plenty of "oh, shut up you twat, you're supposed to be something something something what am I doing again?"
I don't get it. I provide a summary to an AI which turns it into a post. And an AI at the other end turns back into a summary. Can't we just send the summary? i.e. why do I get pulled up for writing in my "terse" and "detailed-focus" style in the first place? You've just shown that what I write is, actually, what you want.
No, no, if you write "terse" and "detail focused" that means you think about what words you put down, what they mean and use precisely the amount of words needed to express precisely what you need. That leaves no room for interpretation, denial and cherry picking. If you force someone to inflate their word count they start repeating themselves with variations, they start using more words than they need, they start to simplify and over expand on things. And then you can have AI interpret this into a summary while filtering it exactly on how they want so they can interpret your text exactly how THEY want, without any of the bothersome issues of what YOU intended. People who don't like terse and detail focused writing are imho best avoided in general.
My profile is a resume and that's about it. It's a place where I can be found should somebody I know from days gone by want to find me. Maybe once a year I'll use it to find somebody I'd like to get in touch with. I don't read postings from anybody although I get the occasional email from LinkedIn about something or another that I just trash with barely a skim. I like the connections aspect since if I'm interested in contacting somebody and they are connected with somebody I know, maybe I can take some soundings first if that's appropriate.
If LinkedIn strives to be the same as every other Social Media site, there's no point to paying them any attention. They need to define a path that's inline with professional relationships and stay away from personal relationship stuff, politics, religion, etc.
"LinkedIn, you've probably run into self-congratulatory posts, ... but a study of such posts has pulled the curtain off the wizard: More than half of such posts are written by AI."
Kinda of tumbled to that when I figured the tossers would be challenged to type their copious drivel one handed and the non-dominant one at that.
I only recently bothered with a LinkedIn account to keep tabs on the 'tards still at a previous place of employment to "follow their future endeavours with great interest."
I am surprised that a platform with near zero signal/noise ratio still endures if rather zombie like.
"Pulled the curtain off the wizard" really rather has the sense more of disrobing the unfortunate mage than pulling the curtain aside but whether Dorothy would have shrieked in horror, delight or laughter at the former we can only conjecture.
I have the LinkedIn presence, sort of the shame of the unemployed. They have this peculiar feed of notifications that arises from all these people that seem to frequent the site: this unending stream of consciousness that demands attention without providing anything “actionable,” I guess I would describe it. What’s interesting are some of the individuals, who I know to be real people, who are participating in it.
“Why,” well one such individual has stated there, on the LinkedIn, that he is on a mission to stamp out “why”.
(I know what he’s talking about, there is a current trend of “idea bankruptcy” in which you can’t think of anything worthwhile to say, so you take old, vapid, formerly-trendy ideas and now you disclaim them as discredited or disproven, for example the “Five Whys” junk philosophy of yesteryear. It has a real strong “feasting on your own feces” musk about it.)
Five whys isn't neccesarily junk. It can be a very good way to force a good in-depth study of what went wrong. But only if applied at the right time in the right situation. And this is where all those management types go off the rails because they all love to espouse the latest fad technique as being the best and greatest and always applicable with no defects and no caveats. And THAT is the bullshit.
Just for kicks and giggles, I plugged in "Write a random article to post on LinkedIn" into MS CoPilot
Sure enough: The content it came up with looked exactly like a *lot* of the content we see on LinkedIn, today.
Tried it three more times - same thing - each article looked hauntingly familiar.
(No: I posted none of them to the site)
-Marc
Real leadership anywhere is a)Rare b)Damm tough.
Some of the best advice I've ever seen was "If you're finding most of your decisions are easy, you're not delegating enough. You deserve the big bucks for making the difficult ones (provided they are correct of course, which can be difficult to assess).
A key issue is that stock options have de-coupled senior management insiders from a)Lower management and b)Stock owners.
Their goal ceases to be "What is best path for the long term success of the company (that's going to be best for my career)" to "What's best for they types of stock I hold (which could have privileges regualr stock holders don't).
Remember investment banks selling "Garbage" financial instruments to their own customers before the 2008 financial crash?
John: Real leadership anywhere is a)Rare b)Damm tough.
cow: Unfortunately we have to talk in the language of the masses and their broken definition of leadership instead of pretending it means something else.
~
John: Some of the best advice I've ever seen was "If you're finding most of your decisions are easy, you're not delegating enough. You deserve the big bucks for making the difficult ones (provided they are correct of course, which can be difficult to assess).
A key issue is that stock options have de-coupled senior management insiders from a)Lower management and b)Stock owners.
cow: THis may all be true, but it doesnt change that the concept of leadership and the entire process is broken.
There is no leadership, finding 1 in 100 doesnt cut it, we dont pretend that it works because its true 1 in 100.
~
john: Remember investment banks selling "Garbage" financial instruments to their own customers before the 2008 financial crash?
cow: exactly there is no leadership, leading anyone. They are simply parasites doing whatever they can for their own personal gain and nobody else. Thats not leadership at all.
The question whether it is AI or real is a bit more difficult on LinkedIn. Some points to consider.
Recruiters and HR require a specific language and a specific set of incantations. Divert from that and you might not get invited for your next job. Do not write "use", but "utilize" , things like that.
"Thought leaders" are in general people with little or no actual skills. They subsists by copying each others "inspirational" quotes. It is therefore easy to confuse them with AI.
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2025
