6 ms·

Hey, I'm the author of the blog post. Thank you for submitting this. If you have any questions feel free to ask and please let me know how the writing was. It's

Hey, I'm the author of the blog post. Thank you for submitting this. If you have any questions feel free to ask and please let me know how the writing was. It's one of my first posts so I'd like to improve

4gotunameagain 1y ago
Hey mate, I would just like to say that I wish they at least find it in their hearts to reward you for the value you have provided to them. Knowing cut throat american corps, I'm afraid the chances are nil. Even if a good amount for you is peanuts to them. Which is why my position is GPL > MIT..
- mnmalst 1y ago
  They could literally give him 100k, 1mil or even 10mil which would still be a rounding error in their books.
  - eptcyka 1y ago
    Are they even profitable?
    - incone123 1y ago
      Profitable schmofitable! But seriously, that is orthogonal to whether those figures are rounding errors at anthropic's financial level.
  - pmontra 1y ago
    Don't know. A company can have a huge valuation on the stock market but that does not necessarily mean that they have cash to pay wages or can afford to pay a large team. If all they have are stocks they have to find somebody that buys those stocks with cash, then find a way not to run out of those money before selling more stocks. Eventually do an exit and stop worrying or become profitable.
    - htrp 1y ago
      they are raising another billion dollar round
- kome 1y ago
  you're right about MIT vs GPL confusion. people brainwashed themselves into thinking MIT is "more open", because it's more permissive, but it lets others profit off your code without contributing back. GPL makes them share or pay to relicense, since you own the copyright. with MIT, they don’t need to ask. MIT just benefits big corps. GPL better protects the open-source spirit, and paradoxically, the ownership of your work.
  - cesaref 1y ago
    And yes, people being able to use your code for whatever they want is absolutely more open than having restrictions on how/who gets to use it. One other model that can also work well is to dual license as GPL + commercial, so people who want to publish their work can use the GPL license but you can potentially fund the project from license sales to closed source users using the commercial licensing option. I see this a fair bit in the audio community I work within.
    - spookie 1y ago
      Why would it be unfeasible to just share the code parts that are GPL?
      - ahartmetz 1y ago
        If you link against GPL code, your code needs to be GPL compatible. There are some IPC based workarounds, but they are too annoying and slow in most cases.
        fsflover 1y ago
        LGPL exists too.
        ahartmetz 1y ago
        Sure, but the thread was initially about GPL.
- zamalek 1y ago
  I have always preferred permissive over copy-left, because I've historically been unable to use packages at work, which puts food in my mouth, as a developer who spends some time contributing to projects, especially those that I use at work. This has changed everything. AGPL and GFDL from now on.
brainless 1y ago
I honestly think this is some system failure, even a Claude based one. I hope someone in the Claude Desktop team sees this and reaches out to you. Cheers!
trueismywork 1y ago
Do you think that making your product AGPL would being you more money/recognition/jobs for your effort?
- pentamassiv 1y ago
  I don't know. I have no comparison but it is common for crates to be released under MIT. I took over the maintainership from the original author so the license was already there. I rewrote pretty much everything so I guess I could try changing the license now but that's not something I wanna think about. I do the work because I see it as payback for all the great open source software I use all the time.
  - riedel 1y ago
    I really like the copyleft idea, however, I think you did nothing wrong, IMHO, because if large corps like an idea, they will rather reimplement it rather than even bothering with ways to conform to AGPL or buy an alternative licence. Particular in the age of AI, all source available code has become pretty much public domain (value is still in maintenance, etc). License have mostly become a compliance/ideology game that alienates most people. However, changing the license on the main repo, with only a minor version bump, would be a nice asshole move to get their attention past HR (won't make a difference, but if you have nothing to lose).
    - r3trohack3r 1y ago
      Copyright is but one pillar of intellectual property law. I’d like to see an attempt by useful freedom respecting software projects to deploy patents to combat non-free reimplementations. A GPL license that grants you rights to the backing patent as long as the software you develop with it is also released under the GPL license. Use the library for closed source software? Copyright violation. Reimplement the software under another license? Patent violation. Create something slightly different and call it the same thing? Trademark violation.
      - 1y ago
null_deref 1y ago
It was a fun and easy read
ChrisMarshallNY 1y ago
Do you feel like Claptrap did?[0]. In all seriousness, good work. Sorry about the rejection, but it reminds me of the story about the Homebrew guy getting rejected by Google[1]. [0] https://youtu.be/hDzWw5rfefQ https://youtu.be/hDzWw5rfefQ [1] https://x.com/mxcl/status/608682016205344768 https://x.com/mxcl/status/608682016205344768
- gherkinnn 1y ago
  I have fond memories of playing Claptrap in Borderlands Presequel. None of my friends do though, his vaulthunter.EXE ability made few friends.
- riedel 1y ago
  Also Microsoft and AppGet: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23331287 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23331287
- JdeBP 1y ago
  As discussed at length on this page at https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44808807 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44808807 .
  - ChrisMarshallNY 1y ago
    Cool. Thanks for the link, but I wasn't actually trying to steal anyone's thunder, and ... I did read the article. Just felt that it wouldn't hurt to link to it. Also, that discussion gets pretty mean. Didn't feel like I wanted to send people there. I just wanted to give the guy a pat on the back, and bring some humor into it. Been there. Sucks.
    - ryandrake 1y ago
      I don't know--As a non-celebrity tech worker, it's actually kind of comforting to see a company that doesn't just automatically roll out the red carpet and grease internal wheels, just because a candidate once wrote some very popular software. It sounds like there are still companies that make you go through the same whiteboard hazing and non-deterministic hiring process as the rest of us mere mortals, regardless of how well known you are.
lagniappe 1y ago
Thank you for your service
andrepd 1y ago
I'm disappointed about your resigned, almost subservient tone. This company is profiting immensely off of your work, and they don't even give you the courtesy of a job interview? ~~Have you considered a copyleft licence like LGPL?~~ Answered in a sibling comment
- zoky 1y ago
  > This company is profiting immensely off of your work I wouldn’t say that’s exactly the case. Not to denigrate the author or anything, but this library is a relatively minor part of what Anthropic is doing. It’s a UI manipulation library, specifically one that simulates keyboard and mouse inputs. While something like that is certainly necessary for the project in question, it’s not anything that couldn’t be rewritten in-house without too much difficulty, especially since they’re only using a subset of the platforms supported by the library. I’m sure that working on this project has provided the author with expertise in this area that Anthropic could benefit from, and so in that sense it’s still a shame that they wouldn’t give him an interview, but that’s really all that can be said about it.
  - kridsdale1 1y ago
    Also worth noting that NONE of the AI companies are profiting at all, let alone “immensely”. Google is, but not from AI.
  - nomel 1y ago
    > it’s not anything that couldn’t be rewritten in-house without too much difficulty This is my experience, at every group I’ve been in. Extending the date a bit is much easier than involving legal for approving a new library. The group I’m in now sunk a substantial amount of money into a lawsuit for a library that accidentally made its way in, so are now “No LGPL.” with some crazy loops and approvals required if there’s really no alternative (very rare). From their perspective, it’s cheaper and safer to rewrite than not be in compliance, unintentionally or not.
- jrockway 1y ago
  You have to think about other users as well. One person taking advantage of you doesn't mean you have to cut off all the people not taking advantage of you. Expecting a reward from open source software is a recipe for disappointment. I have contributed code to projects by companies that say I'm a mentally-ill household object. I'm not going to change the license of my open source projects to get back at them, because the collateral damage against entities that aren't evil simply isn't worth it. (It's also somewhat unlikely that the people working on NTP servers at Facebook wrote those policies, so...)
deleted 1y ago
[deleted]
FrustratedMonky 1y ago
I hope that was just an auto-reply rejection, that it got caught in the HR bureaucracy, and some human developer sees this and re-considers.
fenomas 1y ago
Hey, great work, and just wanted to lend my voice in support! It's kind of wild how many open source devs have a story along similar lines. (Mine is the time when Mojang used my voxel engine..)
gwbas1c 1y ago
I wonder if it's useful for you to put a few subtle "hire me"s on your repo, mailing list, ect?
- xico 1y ago
  If we are at the point where a hiring manager for a position deeply related to an open source library is not at least checking if the authors would be interested, I'm not sure.
131012 1y ago
Since you're asking: I took a pause mid-reading and told myself: "Woah, I like their writing style."
- pentamassiv 1y ago
  Wow, what a great compliment. Thank you :-)
deleted 1y ago
[deleted]
robpanico333 1y ago
This lands. I discovered an emergent feature in GTP40 and when I tried to post about it on the developer forum, the spam filter removed my post. I asked GPT40 to rewrite it for me. I posted the update, and got banned. There's too much 'noise'. People like Einstein and Tesla would've gone unnoticed today, as I doubt they would've become "social media influencers" just to promote their ideas.
- htrp 1y ago
  edison was pretty good at self promo
  - robpanico333 1y ago
    Absolutely. He had a rare combination of skills and personality traits. He was good at sourcing unorthodox talent too -- he employed immigrant Tesla!
mystraline 1y ago
You should change the license to AGPL and 'custom, contact for payment details', and provide a link to this as why you did so. Simply put, anything not a viral license like GPL allows parasitization by companies effectively living off FLOSS devs, with absolutely nothing to gain. Human rights under GPL were meant to apply to humans, not '3 lawyers in a trench coat' (corporations). They can make their decisions (snubbing a dev of code they deem good enough for enterprise). And you can make comparable decisions, punishing them for the sheer hubris. It also reaffirms that my decision of AGPL for everything is the right one. They can contact for custom terms.
- foxglacier 1y ago
  Some people want others to freely use their software and choose MIT precisely because it's more free than GPL. There's nothing wrong with just making something for free and giving it away if that's what you want. Not everybody has to be chasing money in all their activities. The author said he was proud of this outcome and nervous at how widely his hobby project will be deployed. That sounds like the ambition of many open source authors and a win. Might never have happened with GPL.
  - mystraline 1y ago
    > Some people want others to freely use their software and choose MIT precisely because it's more free than GPL. MIT license is absolutely not 'more free' than the GPL. In fact, MIT means you give up effective ownership and control. You lose control and contributions. And what do you get for that loss of control? Exposure. Or, in this and many other cases similar, you get diddly shit. Some company paracitizes your code, sometimes even demands SOC questionnaires and 'do this bug NOW', and other abuse. > Not everybody has to be chasing money in all their activities. Talk about missing the point! This was all about money. It was about a job at the company where the code is being used in a production manner. And they didn't even bother to give an interview. And not many of us are independently wealthy, and can do things that we want with no monetary care. And, most FLOSS devs aren't that. Instead, they're being used as unpaid stepping stones so some overvalued AI hypesquad can vibecode (or slotmachine programming) faster. > The author said he was proud of this outcome and nervous at how widely his hobby project will be deployed. That sounds like the ambition of many open source authors and a win. Might never have happened with GPL. That's where I hope the author relicenses as LGPL and proprietary, and doesn't give Anthropic any more free professional work. And if it never would have happened with the GPL, gasp, they would have had to pay developers to create it. And until I'm independently wealthy, I too will license AGPL. If you're making money on my stuff, I want a cut. Simple as that.
tkdb 1y ago
Fun write up, lovely irony (if your work did actually help AI auto-reject you). If I was you, I would probably feel similar "you used my project, you probably want to hire me!" But there's a logical fallacy there. Your creation being useful to a person or company ≠ you being a fit to work with/for them full time. Still, you deserved human eyes on the question from their side.
AndrewKemendo 1y ago
Can you please send me your resume: Andrew@gambit.us
- bigyabai 1y ago
  You should list a pay range unless you want to be ignored. Developers aren't going to go out of their way to play your little game without a carrot on the stick.
  - AndrewKemendo 1y ago
    How is asking someone to send me a resume a “little game”
    - bigyabai 1y ago
      It's literally the employment equivalent of a cold-call. You could not be less attractive to employees if you tried.
- archon810 1y ago
  Are you the head of AI at a military contractor? This is probably information you should disclose when asking people to send you their resumes.
archon810 1y ago
Now that this is trending on Hacker News, surely there will be a happy ending when someone from Anthropic sees this post and hires you with sincerest apologies and everyone lives happily ever after? Can we get a positive story out of this, universe?
- lo_zamoyski 1y ago
  It might have been the motivation behind the post in the first place, though not without risk.
  - jrockway 1y ago
    What's the risk? The current state is "your application has been thrown into a fire and will never be seen by human eyes". How can it get worse than that? There is no downside to complaining on HN, except for getting the reputation that you really wanted to work there, which, again, isn't that negative of a thing.
seanw265 1y ago
Hey, I really liked the post and especially the title. Quite surreal but also very fitting at the same time. The writing was great too. Hope you keep going. I’d love to read more.
utbabya 1y ago
If they use any form of filtering / evaluation along the line of STAR, the positive way you chose to deal with it plus the outcome of it being a top post on HN should score you half the position already, good luck :)
pentamassiv 1y ago
UPDATE: Two people from Anthropic recommended me internally and their HR department already rejected the application. They recommended me for jobs where you need more experience with AI, so I agree that I wasn't a good fit for those positions. Thank you for your recommendations anyways. That was very kind. A number of other people contacted me with offers so it looks like there will be a happy end to the story :-)

4gotunameagain 1y ago

Hey mate, I would just like to say that I wish they at least find it in their hearts to reward you for the value you have provided to them. Knowing cut throat american corps, I'm afraid the chances are nil. Even if a good amount for you is peanuts to them. Which is why my position is GPL > MIT..

mnmalst 1y ago
They could literally give him 100k, 1mil or even 10mil which would still be a rounding error in their books.
- eptcyka 1y ago
  Are they even profitable?
  - incone123 1y ago
    Profitable schmofitable! But seriously, that is orthogonal to whether those figures are rounding errors at anthropic's financial level.
- pmontra 1y ago
  Don't know. A company can have a huge valuation on the stock market but that does not necessarily mean that they have cash to pay wages or can afford to pay a large team. If all they have are stocks they have to find somebody that buys those stocks with cash, then find a way not to run out of those money before selling more stocks. Eventually do an exit and stop worrying or become profitable.
  - htrp 1y ago
    they are raising another billion dollar round
kome 1y ago
you're right about MIT vs GPL confusion. people brainwashed themselves into thinking MIT is "more open", because it's more permissive, but it lets others profit off your code without contributing back. GPL makes them share or pay to relicense, since you own the copyright. with MIT, they don’t need to ask. MIT just benefits big corps. GPL better protects the open-source spirit, and paradoxically, the ownership of your work.
- cesaref 1y ago
  And yes, people being able to use your code for whatever they want is absolutely more open than having restrictions on how/who gets to use it. One other model that can also work well is to dual license as GPL + commercial, so people who want to publish their work can use the GPL license but you can potentially fund the project from license sales to closed source users using the commercial licensing option. I see this a fair bit in the audio community I work within.
  - spookie 1y ago
    Why would it be unfeasible to just share the code parts that are GPL?
    - ahartmetz 1y ago
      If you link against GPL code, your code needs to be GPL compatible. There are some IPC based workarounds, but they are too annoying and slow in most cases.
      - fsflover 1y ago
        LGPL exists too.
        ahartmetz 1y ago
        Sure, but the thread was initially about GPL.
zamalek 1y ago
I have always preferred permissive over copy-left, because I've historically been unable to use packages at work, which puts food in my mouth, as a developer who spends some time contributing to projects, especially those that I use at work. This has changed everything. AGPL and GFDL from now on.

brainless 1y ago

I honestly think this is some system failure, even a Claude based one. I hope someone in the Claude Desktop team sees this and reaches out to you. Cheers!

trueismywork 1y ago

Do you think that making your product AGPL would being you more money/recognition/jobs for your effort?

pentamassiv 1y ago
I don't know. I have no comparison but it is common for crates to be released under MIT. I took over the maintainership from the original author so the license was already there. I rewrote pretty much everything so I guess I could try changing the license now but that's not something I wanna think about. I do the work because I see it as payback for all the great open source software I use all the time.
- riedel 1y ago
  I really like the copyleft idea, however, I think you did nothing wrong, IMHO, because if large corps like an idea, they will rather reimplement it rather than even bothering with ways to conform to AGPL or buy an alternative licence. Particular in the age of AI, all source available code has become pretty much public domain (value is still in maintenance, etc). License have mostly become a compliance/ideology game that alienates most people. However, changing the license on the main repo, with only a minor version bump, would be a nice asshole move to get their attention past HR (won't make a difference, but if you have nothing to lose).
  - r3trohack3r 1y ago
    Copyright is but one pillar of intellectual property law. I’d like to see an attempt by useful freedom respecting software projects to deploy patents to combat non-free reimplementations. A GPL license that grants you rights to the backing patent as long as the software you develop with it is also released under the GPL license. Use the library for closed source software? Copyright violation. Reimplement the software under another license? Patent violation. Create something slightly different and call it the same thing? Trademark violation.
    - 1y ago

null_deref 1y ago

It was a fun and easy read

ChrisMarshallNY 1y ago

Do you feel like Claptrap did?[0]. In all seriousness, good work. Sorry about the rejection, but it reminds me of the story about the Homebrew guy getting rejected by Google[1]. [0] https://youtu.be/hDzWw5rfefQ https://youtu.be/hDzWw5rfefQ [1] https://x.com/mxcl/status/608682016205344768 https://x.com/mxcl/status/608682016205344768

gherkinnn 1y ago
I have fond memories of playing Claptrap in Borderlands Presequel. None of my friends do though, his vaulthunter.EXE ability made few friends.
riedel 1y ago
Also Microsoft and AppGet: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23331287 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23331287
JdeBP 1y ago
As discussed at length on this page at https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44808807 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44808807 .
- ChrisMarshallNY 1y ago
  Cool. Thanks for the link, but I wasn't actually trying to steal anyone's thunder, and ... I did read the article. Just felt that it wouldn't hurt to link to it. Also, that discussion gets pretty mean. Didn't feel like I wanted to send people there. I just wanted to give the guy a pat on the back, and bring some humor into it. Been there. Sucks.
  - ryandrake 1y ago
    I don't know--As a non-celebrity tech worker, it's actually kind of comforting to see a company that doesn't just automatically roll out the red carpet and grease internal wheels, just because a candidate once wrote some very popular software. It sounds like there are still companies that make you go through the same whiteboard hazing and non-deterministic hiring process as the rest of us mere mortals, regardless of how well known you are.

lagniappe 1y ago

Thank you for your service

andrepd 1y ago

I'm disappointed about your resigned, almost subservient tone. This company is profiting immensely off of your work, and they don't even give you the courtesy of a job interview? ~~Have you considered a copyleft licence like LGPL?~~ Answered in a sibling comment

zoky 1y ago
> This company is profiting immensely off of your work I wouldn’t say that’s exactly the case. Not to denigrate the author or anything, but this library is a relatively minor part of what Anthropic is doing. It’s a UI manipulation library, specifically one that simulates keyboard and mouse inputs. While something like that is certainly necessary for the project in question, it’s not anything that couldn’t be rewritten in-house without too much difficulty, especially since they’re only using a subset of the platforms supported by the library. I’m sure that working on this project has provided the author with expertise in this area that Anthropic could benefit from, and so in that sense it’s still a shame that they wouldn’t give him an interview, but that’s really all that can be said about it.
- kridsdale1 1y ago
  Also worth noting that NONE of the AI companies are profiting at all, let alone “immensely”. Google is, but not from AI.
- nomel 1y ago
  > it’s not anything that couldn’t be rewritten in-house without too much difficulty This is my experience, at every group I’ve been in. Extending the date a bit is much easier than involving legal for approving a new library. The group I’m in now sunk a substantial amount of money into a lawsuit for a library that accidentally made its way in, so are now “No LGPL.” with some crazy loops and approvals required if there’s really no alternative (very rare). From their perspective, it’s cheaper and safer to rewrite than not be in compliance, unintentionally or not.
jrockway 1y ago
You have to think about other users as well. One person taking advantage of you doesn't mean you have to cut off all the people not taking advantage of you. Expecting a reward from open source software is a recipe for disappointment. I have contributed code to projects by companies that say I'm a mentally-ill household object. I'm not going to change the license of my open source projects to get back at them, because the collateral damage against entities that aren't evil simply isn't worth it. (It's also somewhat unlikely that the people working on NTP servers at Facebook wrote those policies, so...)

deleted 1y ago

[deleted]

FrustratedMonky 1y ago

I hope that was just an auto-reply rejection, that it got caught in the HR bureaucracy, and some human developer sees this and re-considers.

fenomas 1y ago

Hey, great work, and just wanted to lend my voice in support! It's kind of wild how many open source devs have a story along similar lines. (Mine is the time when Mojang used my voxel engine..)

gwbas1c 1y ago

I wonder if it's useful for you to put a few subtle "hire me"s on your repo, mailing list, ect?

xico 1y ago
If we are at the point where a hiring manager for a position deeply related to an open source library is not at least checking if the authors would be interested, I'm not sure.

131012 1y ago

Since you're asking: I took a pause mid-reading and told myself: "Woah, I like their writing style."

pentamassiv 1y ago
Wow, what a great compliment. Thank you :-)

deleted 1y ago

[deleted]

robpanico333 1y ago

This lands. I discovered an emergent feature in GTP40 and when I tried to post about it on the developer forum, the spam filter removed my post. I asked GPT40 to rewrite it for me. I posted the update, and got banned. There's too much 'noise'. People like Einstein and Tesla would've gone unnoticed today, as I doubt they would've become "social media influencers" just to promote their ideas.

htrp 1y ago
edison was pretty good at self promo
- robpanico333 1y ago
  Absolutely. He had a rare combination of skills and personality traits. He was good at sourcing unorthodox talent too -- he employed immigrant Tesla!

mystraline 1y ago

You should change the license to AGPL and 'custom, contact for payment details', and provide a link to this as why you did so. Simply put, anything not a viral license like GPL allows parasitization by companies effectively living off FLOSS devs, with absolutely nothing to gain. Human rights under GPL were meant to apply to humans, not '3 lawyers in a trench coat' (corporations). They can make their decisions (snubbing a dev of code they deem good enough for enterprise). And you can make comparable decisions, punishing them for the sheer hubris. It also reaffirms that my decision of AGPL for everything is the right one. They can contact for custom terms.

foxglacier 1y ago
Some people want others to freely use their software and choose MIT precisely because it's more free than GPL. There's nothing wrong with just making something for free and giving it away if that's what you want. Not everybody has to be chasing money in all their activities. The author said he was proud of this outcome and nervous at how widely his hobby project will be deployed. That sounds like the ambition of many open source authors and a win. Might never have happened with GPL.
- mystraline 1y ago
  > Some people want others to freely use their software and choose MIT precisely because it's more free than GPL. MIT license is absolutely not 'more free' than the GPL. In fact, MIT means you give up effective ownership and control. You lose control and contributions. And what do you get for that loss of control? Exposure. Or, in this and many other cases similar, you get diddly shit. Some company paracitizes your code, sometimes even demands SOC questionnaires and 'do this bug NOW', and other abuse. > Not everybody has to be chasing money in all their activities. Talk about missing the point! This was all about money. It was about a job at the company where the code is being used in a production manner. And they didn't even bother to give an interview. And not many of us are independently wealthy, and can do things that we want with no monetary care. And, most FLOSS devs aren't that. Instead, they're being used as unpaid stepping stones so some overvalued AI hypesquad can vibecode (or slotmachine programming) faster. > The author said he was proud of this outcome and nervous at how widely his hobby project will be deployed. That sounds like the ambition of many open source authors and a win. Might never have happened with GPL. That's where I hope the author relicenses as LGPL and proprietary, and doesn't give Anthropic any more free professional work. And if it never would have happened with the GPL, gasp, they would have had to pay developers to create it. And until I'm independently wealthy, I too will license AGPL. If you're making money on my stuff, I want a cut. Simple as that.

tkdb 1y ago

Fun write up, lovely irony (if your work did actually help AI auto-reject you). If I was you, I would probably feel similar "you used my project, you probably want to hire me!" But there's a logical fallacy there. Your creation being useful to a person or company ≠ you being a fit to work with/for them full time. Still, you deserved human eyes on the question from their side.

AndrewKemendo 1y ago

Can you please send me your resume: Andrew@gambit.us

bigyabai 1y ago
You should list a pay range unless you want to be ignored. Developers aren't going to go out of their way to play your little game without a carrot on the stick.
- AndrewKemendo 1y ago
  How is asking someone to send me a resume a “little game”
  - bigyabai 1y ago
    It's literally the employment equivalent of a cold-call. You could not be less attractive to employees if you tried.
archon810 1y ago
Are you the head of AI at a military contractor? This is probably information you should disclose when asking people to send you their resumes.

archon810 1y ago

Now that this is trending on Hacker News, surely there will be a happy ending when someone from Anthropic sees this post and hires you with sincerest apologies and everyone lives happily ever after? Can we get a positive story out of this, universe?

lo_zamoyski 1y ago
It might have been the motivation behind the post in the first place, though not without risk.
- jrockway 1y ago
  What's the risk? The current state is "your application has been thrown into a fire and will never be seen by human eyes". How can it get worse than that? There is no downside to complaining on HN, except for getting the reputation that you really wanted to work there, which, again, isn't that negative of a thing.

seanw265 1y ago

Hey, I really liked the post and especially the title. Quite surreal but also very fitting at the same time. The writing was great too. Hope you keep going. I’d love to read more.

utbabya 1y ago

If they use any form of filtering / evaluation along the line of STAR, the positive way you chose to deal with it plus the outcome of it being a top post on HN should score you half the position already, good luck :)

pentamassiv 1y ago

UPDATE: Two people from Anthropic recommended me internally and their HR department already rejected the application. They recommended me for jobs where you need more experience with AI, so I agree that I wasn't a good fit for those positions. Thank you for your recommendations anyways. That was very kind. A number of other people contacted me with offers so it looks like there will be a happy end to the story :-)