story
But there are uncharitable parts, such as:
> ... you couldn't explain what your skills are ...
... as well as:
> What do you plan to do if someone does give you a job and assign you a task? Tell your employer to prompt some tool to explain why you cannot complete that task?
This is a rhetorical question and not a charitable one. I am trying to interpret in a potentially neutral light, but this seems implausible. It seems much more likely to be snarky and mean: why does it assume "you cannot complete that task"?
Overall, the comment reflects an overall dislike of the project, which is fine. But as phrased seems to do more than that; it seems to attack the person who would do such a project. If the comment had demonstrated curiosity and/or attacked the idea clearly without attacking the person, we'd have a better experience here.
I will certainly grant there are good criticisms to be made*, but I don't think they should be done in this way nor with this particular argument.
* Both of this LLM-resume thing in particular as well as a concern that this might become more common*