Turns Out, AI Sucks at Your Job

The cracks in the AI renaissance are really starting to show this summer, no? I’m gonna throw a few links at you. Click if you want. Or don’t. They’re not mine. They’re just there to show that I couldn’t possibly make this stuff up. Earlier in June, Anthropic mothballed Claude Explains, their human-meets-AI blog that never found its footing. Apparently, no one wanted to read human-edited AI slop. Then right after that, Ramp announced that maybe corporations were kinda, sorta rolling back their grand AI spending plans. Maybe? They’re squishy about it. But that post does take the time to mention the Klarna AI-first support hiccup. Apparently, no one wanted their problems “solved” by AI. Then towards the end of June, LinkedIn CEO Ryan Roslansky wanted you to know that its AI writing assistant uptake was… underwhelming, because apparently, no one wanted their public reputation as a business leader left to the whims of some data scientist. Oh! Here’s a link I want you to click: I just wrote about why you shouldn’t be AI’s editor. But, I mean, wow. Cruel summer, eh? Look, if you’re a new reader, I’m not anti-AI. Not at all. I’m kind of an OG. But I am very much anti-sloppy-tech-implementation and calling it something generic like AI. So while I’m certainly not sad that Anthropic’s AI blog isn’t taking off, and while I’m thrilled that corporations are taking a minute to self-reflect on their own FOMO, that last item, the LinkedIn one, made me think. Why is LinkedIn making this less-than-stellar uptake of an AI use case public? Hang on, it’s going to get worse before it gets better. Reckless speculation follows. No One Wants AI Leading Their Thought Leadership I think the admission from LinkedIn is really just a veiled shot at other social platforms as LinkedIn further digs its moat around becoming the one true social network for business. Because, make no mistake, LinkedIn is a corporate resource market mover, and not in the sense that building a truly perfect presence on LinkedIn is a benefit, but because having an imperfect or weak presence on LinkedIn is a career detriment. That’s, like, brilliant evil plan No. 1 in product when you want to turn a nice-to-have product into a must-have product. It’s not about enjoying the aspirational benefits of a product, it’s about how lacking the product will make you poor and ugly and friendless. Nowhere is that scarier than not being gainfully employed. Résumés Are Dying Out The article and the admission aren’t about a lack of uptake in AI résumé polishing—because I think we can all testify that no one ever thought AI résumé polishing was a good idea. It’s about a lack of uptake in using AI help to polish thought posts, the feed, the “this is who I am” of LinkedIn. That’s what’s not working. Because no one wants it. So are they going to change course? No. Because the feed is the new résumé. I’ve stated both publicly and more emphatically in my private newsletter, that I believe that LinkedIn believes that social-networking-style engagement is the future of both the job hunt and career growth in general. That argument seems to be gaining traction. You’re the Influencer of Your Own Career Now Let’s look at one of those quotes from LinkedIn’s CEO, referring to why users don’t want AI speaking for them in their posts, because AI can suck sometimes: “If you’re getting called out on X or TikTok, that’s one thing. But when you’re getting called out on LinkedIn, it really impacts your ability to create economic opportunity for yourself.” The italics are mine, because I’m reading between the lines that, yeah, you don’t need to be a YouTuber with millions of followers pulling down influencer cash, but if you eff up on the world’s preeminent social network for business by letting an AI hallucination speak for you, you can kiss that paycheck goodbye. And also your marriage, your house, and your electric vehicle. To AI or Not to AI? As summer rolls into fall and we all regret the time we should have spent not shitposting about the guy in the next cubicle—and make no mistake, there’s already plenty of personal and political drama trickling its way into your LinkedIn feed—the question to finally be asked is, “To AI or not to AI?” It’s the question we should have been asking from the beginning, not “Can I actually make decent coin as a prompt engineer?” Because when everyone is using AI, no one stands out. And as AI starts to “learn” from what we humans generate using it, well, the snake has already started chewing its own tail. I wanted to give LinkedIn’s CEO credit for calling out a use case that AI isn’t well-suited for. Then, the article quotes him as saying this: “[Roslansky] said he uses AI himself when he talks to his boss, Microsoft CEO Satya Nadella: ‘Every time, before I send him an email, I hit the Copilot button to make sure that I sound Satya-smart.’ ” He can’t possibly believe this. He’s selling Copilot here, right? Why did you even print that? I’m not going to attack this quote because it attacks itself and I’d just be piling on. Let’s Blame the Victim! Ultimately, yeah, this is kind of our fault. We did this. We job-hopped. We career-climbed for cash. We wanted all the easy buttons for a new or better job. Another good product tenet to remember: Every time you make something easier, you make it dumber and more vulnerable to exploitation. So what do we do about it? To me, it feels like corporate leadership has been saying for a while, “AI is not a replacement, it’s a tool.” But all along, as they’ve been saying it, it’s advice they mean for everyone else. While they replace resources with AI, they expect the remaining resources to use AI as a tool. But maybe now we’re all starting to see that, oh, AI really is just a tool, and as more end-users reject the notion of AI as a replacement, more leadership will start listening to their own advice. EXPERT OPINION BY JOE PROCOPIO, FOUNDER, JOEPROCOPIO.COM @JPROCO