What my LinkedIn post meant, uncensored
I suppose I was triggered by a post on LinkedIn. I don’t see it anymore, so I can’t link to it. The contents, though, are still clear:
- The poster quote-posted an article about users starting to express annoyance with AI-generated posts.
- The poster replied with tips to mask their AI-posts with selective typos and whatnot.
My own post:
1. The generally accepted consensus is that people don't like scrolling and seeing a wall of chatbot posts. But, if the professional reaction is to train the bot to hide common tics, then the whole exercise probably merits re-examination.
2. I think covering knowledge gaps with chatbot text just masks deficiency and it's obvious; you do not need to be the foremost expert with the correct take on everything. Fumbling publicly in the process of learning something new is part of the process of growing professionally; it's the intellectual version of training for a marathon. I've been quietly (up until now) upskilling in quantum computing; I find I am wrong about something practically every day. Today I think the Copenhagen Interpretation is the most logical path; yesterday I thought it was nuts. But, hey, learning something new is a blue ocean and I feel free to be wrong in the pursuance of eventually developing expertise.
3. I am up for talking about targeted AI and agent use cases all day long. AI as implemented in very specific instances saves a ton of labor and uncovers hidden intelligence. But talking about AI as this amorphous blob concept? I'm done with it. Same with opinions on data centers and the cost of memory. It's like starting a conversation about the weather. Yes, it's partly cloudy out, and hot too. It kind of also feels like the question, "do you do BI?" once we got to 2015. Well, yes, but let's be specific about how and what we're implementing.
Just lunch-break thoughts. Feel free to disagree or push back if you think I'm wrong.
Masking isn't engagement
Flooding a feed with chatbot posts is standard LinkedIn look-at-me behavior. It’s an annoyance, but generally easy to scroll past.
Programming that behavior to disguise itself, without ever actually showing up as a human being, is a different category. I can't picture a professional setting where that reads as sensible. I absolutely would not want to see a colleague engaging or promoting this sort of social media behavior.
What I actually want to see from you
If a colleague or a candidate is posting a Gemini answer dressed up with a stray typo and a trailing ellipsis, every alarm I have goes off. Not because AI touched the post. Because someone spent effort hiding that it did, instead of spending that effort on something real.
I don't want your Claude reposts. If I have a question for Claude, I'll ask it myself, in my own words to get the answer I need. I want to see what you're actually working on, how you're approaching it, and where you're stuck. That's what tells me you're a serious professional. It's also harder to fake, which is probably exactly why the shortcut exists.
Bad AI generated image header full of text typos. Typical post about “this is why you should do X or Y” said in the same chatbot matter-of-fact fashion. Alternating these types of posts with scheduled low effort copy-pasta. On LinkedIn, it’s the equivalent of being basic. It's somehow even worse if you’re also truing to sell something. Mask your posts to slip past AI-slop detection and you drag your pitch down with it.
Generalities are the other tell
Same root problem shows up in point three. Speaking only in generalities on a professional network is its own kind of engagement farming. If you're posting to people in your field, assume they're conversant in the details and ready to go deep on something specific. Anything less is wading in the splash pad while everyone else is doing adult laps in the pool.
