I am still surprised (and chuckling a bit) about the comments I got on a “tough love” post I published on LinkedIn. It wasn’t even one of my full-on rant posts, which people usually love. I knew it would be a little polarizing since I was suggesting job seekers use AI prudently. I expected AI evangelists to chime in and tell me I was wrong, but what I got was genuine vitriol sprinkled with some crazy. 

Below is my post, which was sharp, but came from a genuinely good place of wanting to help job seekers have more success.

As I write this, the post has 18,713 impressions, 36 reactions, 31 comments, and 3 reposts. I never get that type of visibility. 

I expected some pushback, given the current job market and what job seekers think they are supposed to be doing, but clearly I hit a deeper nerve. People reacted to the insanity of the current job market. (I can’t argue with that.)

They expressed frustration about not being able to get seen by recruiters or have a conversation with a real person. (Also valid.) 

They expressed exasperation about how job descriptions are created and how a real person couldn’t be all that. (Yes, it’s maddening.)

They expressed anger about AI being jammed down our throats by employers. (I can understand that too.)

What I couldn’t understand was posting comments specifically going after my moral character, bad advice, intentions, etc. You expect that kind of thing on X (formerly Twitter), which is why I am no longer using that platform, but on LinkedIn? 

As a reminder, LinkedIn is a social media platform, but it is one that we use for professional reasons. It can be directly tied to whether you get a job, client, business partner, or vendor. Almost any person who has a professional conversation with you will look you up on LinkedIn before they talk with you. 

You can easily see what comments someone has posted by looking at their profile. Current employers and anyone you might want to connect with can see exactly who you are and how you behave. Will they want you as a business partner or member of their team if you can’t show restraint on a public platform? Will they want to buy anything from you? I doubt it. 

The best was the trolling that was clearly written by AI. I can smell it a mile away, and so can many other people, as I said in my post. To be clear: I use AI and am grateful to have it. It can do many things extremely well, but being human isn’t one of them, at least not yet. 

Here are two comments that were posted. I’ll leave the names off, but you can go look at who wrote what.

Using bad grammar and shouting in ALL CAPS probably isn’t something you should do on LinkedIn. One person wrote:

“Catherine Altman Morgan so is the AI horse out of the barn. Recruiters okay to use efficiency tools but the applicants shouldn’t find efficiency where the can?! That’s utter BS. In addition, I’ve seen people accused of using AI when they didn’t. The same companies who want to CUT THEIR WORKFORCE for AI to replace JOBS, yet an applicant needs to STAY HUMAN!? WT actual F are we doing here!!?!? If companies are going to use BOTS for elimination of applicants why would they PUNISH PEOPLE for doing the same?! Oooooooh, it’s okay for companies to find efficiency and CUT JOBS but when applicants use these tools they’re not human. Humans are getting the shaft right now and you’re supporting it WHILE ALSO ASKING US TO CONTINUE BEING 100% HUMAN. STOP THE INSANITY. Y’ALL SHOULD BE REWARDING PEOPLE FOR USING AI, NOT PUNISHING THEM FOR ADOPTING A TOOL THAT’S BEING SHOVED DOWN OUR THROATS TO ADOPT OR BE REPLACED. MY GOD.”

Someone in a similar business used my post to promote their opinion, which had some overlap with mine, but it seemed like they generated it with AI using the copy from my post:

“There’s real wisdom here—especially the “delegate, don’t abdicate” line.
I’d add one layer: AI isn’t the problem. Unfiltered AI is.
Executives don’t reject AI because it’s technology.
They reject it because it often produces inflated language, vague impact, and generic positioning. That signals a lack of judgment—not just automation.
The issue isn’t buzzwords.
It’s the clarity of business value.
A résumé should answer three questions quickly:
• What level do you operate at?
• What problems do you solve?
• What measurable outcomes followed?
If AI helped draft it—fine.
If AI replaced your thinking—that’s where credibility erodes.
And the interview point is critical.
If you can’t defend a metric, unpack a decision, or tell the story behind a result, your résumé becomes a liability.
The strongest candidates use AI to:
 • Tighten language
 • Test clarity
 • Identify gaps
But they supply the strategy, examples, and judgment.
Technology can accelerate your search.
It cannot substitute for ownership.
Be human.
Be specific.
Be defensible.
That’s what hiring leaders actually respond to.”

Then there was this flaming turd I received through LinkedIn Messenger, which at least isn’t searchable:

“Youtr message drips with arrogance. Suggest in 24 hrs you read your message and imagine yourself as a parent who doesnt have food tonight for their family. Maybe a little compassion instead of arrogance.”

I left the conversation thread.

On the plus side, there were some thoughtful comments, which I appreciated and responded to. 

And this one was quite clever, “I agree and so does ChatGPT.” 

As a reminder, LinkedIn is a public platform that can directly affect your bank account. Use it wisely. 

Photo by Andre Hunter on Unsplash