Is there good reason to think that optimizing resumes will help with the job searching process?

I've heard that many resume screens are automated these days, which has led to my hearing stories of people trying to game this by cramming keywords in invisible font and other things like that.

Can anyone with experience in recruiting shed some light on this matter?

Not really true. You want to know what the most common keywords searched by the HR team are? "Software engineer", "Java", "Developer", etc. The sophistication of the process is limited by the user, not by the capabilities of the search engine.

I actually heard about this exact same thing yesterday. All the buzzwords are in white at the bottom of the page to increase the chances you make it through the automated filter. I personally find this extremely discouraging and a little bit insulting.

It's not really a thing, so I wouldn't lose sleep over it.

The basics are important - get a clean, standard, well-organized resume. Include numbers that show your ability to improve things. Be explicit about titles, capabilities, and achievements.

Unfortunately, a lot of urban legends have popped up over the years that really cause professionals a lot of grief for no good reason.

Agreed. The latency between keypress and result makes it such a pain to use.

Agreed. After writing my own static site generator in Python, I went back and was impressed with all the options available in Pelican. Lots of things I wished I had built were included.

I'm using my own hacked-together very basic system in Python right now, and am pretty happy with it. No doubt I might find myself wanting more features soon, but here's hoping I can stick with it, it's the first moderately interesting side project I've worked on.

To add some more context, here's a rather readable summary:

https://www.greaterwrong.com/posts/FRv7ryoqtvSuqBxuT/underst...

SSC has an interesting take on theodicy that addresses this claim: https://slatestarcodex.com/2015/03/15/answer-to-job/

Doesn't seem like a well-curated list. Some of these, e.g. Uber's God Mode, don't even fall under the normal usage of the term "AI". Others, like Palantir or WeChat, seem to denigrate an entire company (rather than specific practices). And the racist chatbot thing isn't even an actual product, nor was it intentionally designed to be racist.

> Nor was it intentionally designed to be racist

Can't think of a racist AI scandal where is was intentional. The point of those stories is that it's easy to do accidentally.

Trees aren't enough to scale up. You can play with toggling deforestation and reforestation here: https://en-roads.climateinteractive.org/scenario.html?p50=0....

Even in the most optimistic scenarios, it's clear that we'll need additional carbon capture to avoid situations like 3-4 degrees C of warming.

I wrote about something similar for self-help, more broadly here about how good self help is self-defeating:

https://mlu.red/55070266310.html

Dustin is also notable for starting Good Ventures (https://www.goodventures.org/about-us) which funds a lot of research and philanthropy into some great causes.

Oof, that sucks to hear. Thanks for letting us know it's not been updated.