u/OutdoorsDad

I see posts that are like “AI will replace juniors” in this sub and others way too often now. But then you look at the person’s resume and there isn’t a single concrete bullet about shipping anything with AI, using it in a real workflow, nothing. Just vibes.

I went through my own resume a few weeks ago and realized I was doing the same thing. I was talking about AI in conversations, messing with tools, but if a recruiter only saw what was on paper they’d have no reason to believe any of it.

My rough test now is: if I can’t write a believable bullet with numbers, I don’t get to talk about it like it’s a core skill.

Stuff that PASSED that test for me:

• “Used code assistant tooling to cut implementation time for internal feature flags by ~30% across Q1 (based on Jira cycle times).”
• “Set up small internal script to auto‑summarize support tickets before they reached our team, cut triage time from ~20 minutes to ~5 per incident.”

Stuff that FAILED:

• “Used AI heavily for day‑to‑day coding.” (means nothing)
• “Prompt engineered our way to faster development.” (cringe, also unprovable)

When I rewrote my bullets I basically vomited every possible version into a mess of tools (ChatGPT, Resumeworded, Notepad), then forced myself to delete anything I couldn’t back up with a specific example if an interviewer pushed.

The interesting part: once I did that, the AI stuff stopped looking like magic and started looking like.. regular productivity improvements. Nice, but not “the robots stole my job” territory. It’s like saying “I’m fast with grep” or “I’m good at writing small scripts for ops.” Useful, but nobody’s redoing the org chart around it.

So when people here say “there will be no junior roles in 3 years,” I always want to ask:

1. What EXACT thing did you ship that a junior used to do alone, that AI now fully handles?
2. Can you write a resume bullet for it that doesn’t sound made up?
3. If you got laid off, would you feel confident telling a skeptical hiring manager that an AI system can do 80% of what you did? Or is that just Reddit talk?

How others are handling this? If you’ve actually used AI at work, what are the concrete resume bullets you’re using, if any?

And for people who hire, when you see “AI” all over a resume, what makes it sound legit vs fluff?

For students/new grads, are you doing real projects with it that you could defend line‑by‑line in an interview, or is it mostly class/homework stuff right now?

My callback pattern has been weird: job posts say “data scientist,” interviews are basically dashboarding + stakeholder wrangling + some light A/B testing. Then i see other “data scientist” loops that are stats-heavy and feel like a different planet.

So i tried to stop thinking in titles and start thinking in day-to-day:

• What’s the main output: a model in prod, an experiment readout, a metric definition, a dashboard, a dataset/pipeline?
• Who judges you: PMs, clinicians, sales ops, another DS, an eng manager?
• What breaks the work: missing data, no logging, unclear success metric, politics, slow deploy process?
• How often do you ship: weekly analysis, quarterly roadmap stuff, or “we’ll deploy next quarter” forever?

Midway through this i wrote down my answers in a messy doc, then threw the same prompts into the coached career assessment, mainly to force myself to pick between “i like building” vs “i like explaining.”

It changed what i search for. If the posting has 10 lines about Python libraries and 0 lines about decisions/metrics, i assume it’s either academic fluff or they don’t know what they want. If it’s mostly about ownership, data quality, and shipping cadence, the title matters less.

For people who’ve been around: what are your go-to tells that a “data scientist” posting is really analytics vs experimentation vs MLE vs DE-with-a-fancy-title? And if you were advising someone with 2-3 years in analytics, what title would you actually apply to today?

Graduated near the top of my program and then immediately got humbled by office work.

In school I could pull an all-nighter, write some giant paper, sound smart in class, and people loved me for it. Then I got my first real job and suddenly I was the person forgetting attachments, missing tiny details, misunderstanding instructions, taking an hour on something everyone else finished in 10 minutes.

My boss was actually nice about it, which somehow made it worse. The vibe was basically “you’re obviously intelligent, but you’re weirdly unreliable sometimes.” I had never heard that before in my life.

The thing that hit me later was that school rewards effort and depth. Work rewards consistency. Nobody cares if you had a brilliant thought at 1am if you forgot to CC the client or sent the wrong version.

I started building little systems for dumb mistakes because I realized my brain was not going to magically become organized on its own. Stuff like forcing myself to repeat tasks back to people, checking emails in the same order every time, breaking work into smaller chunks instead of doing the “panic sprint before deadline” thing that got me through college.

At the same time I realized my resume sounded just as messy as my workflow. Everything read like “completed research project” or “assisted with X.” Completely lifeless. I rewrote a bunch of it to focus more on outcomes and actual decisions instead of academic-sounding filler.

At one point I had Resumeworded and my friend’s edits all open because I genuinely couldn’t tell anymore whether my resume sounded competent or like a sleep-deprived student trying to cosplay as a professional. helped me notice how much my bullets focused on effort instead of usefulness.

Honestly the hardest adjustment after college wasn’t intelligence. It was accepting that being “smart” and being “dependably useful every day” are not automatically the same thing.

Half my PM job feels like being the only person who remembers what everyone agreed to 3 months ago.

“Wait, why did we cut that feature again?”

“Didn’t we move the launch date?”

“Who decided marketing owned that?”

And then everybody looks at me like I’m supposed to magically reconstruct the last 12 meetings from memory.

For a long time I treated that as just an annoying side effect of the job. Eventually I realized “human decision archive” is basically part of being a PM whether I like it or not.

So now I document decisions way more aggressively than I used to. Every meeting gets a little “decisions made” section in the notes, even if it’s just a few bullets in plain English. I also keep one running decision log per project because otherwise people will reopen the exact same debate six weeks later like it never happened.

The biggest thing that helped was reading major decisions back out loud before ending meetings. Something like: “Okay, so we’re delaying launch two weeks, cutting feature X, and design is adjusting scope.” People will correct you immediately if you got it wrong. Way better than discovering the disagreement months later.

Funny enough, doing this made me realize what I actually like about PM work. I don’t care about being the big visionary product person. I like organizing messy situations into timelines, tradeoffs, and clear decisions people can follow.

I ended up going down a rabbit hole with random work/personality assessments like the Coached test, mostly because I was trying to figure out why some PM responsibilities energize me and others make me want to disappear. It was oddly accurate about the “systems and structure” part.

The decision log has saved me so many times already. Had one VP insist we never agreed to cut scope on something and I was able to pull up the exact meeting, date, attendees, and wording. Without that, I probably would’ve looked completely unprepared.

Honestly if I left tomorrow, I think half the project history at my company would disappear with me, which is a little terrifying.

Last week i was in a “final” interview for a role i actually liked. Good manager, good product, everyone kept saying “OTE is competitive.”

Then i asked: “When someone is performing well, what do they actually take home in a normal quarter? Like, what do your top 25% earn, and how many people hit quota?”

The room got weird fast.

They gave me a spreadsheet-y answer that basically boiled down to: most people don’t hit, accelerators don’t kick in unless you crush a threshold, and a bunch of the “variable” depended on stuff the rep doesn’t control. (Also: payout timing was fuzzy, which is always fun.)

I didn’t argue. I just stopped getting emotionally attached to the job.

Since then i ask these BEFORE i care about the role:

1. How is variable comp calculated (what’s the exact formula, not “it’s based on performance”)

2. What % of the team hit quota last quarter? Last year?

3. What does top-quartile attainment look like in dollars (not the one unicorn year, just a normal year)

4. What’s the measurement window and payout timing (monthly/quarterly, paid when, any clawbacks)

5. What parts are actually in the rep’s control vs “marketing didn’t deliver” / “pricing changed” / “territories got redrawn”

6. If i ramp for 3-6 months, what do people typically make during ramp (base is not the full story if you’re expecting long hours)

Midway through prepping I also wrote down my own dealbreakers in a messy doc (Notes, Google Sheets, and Coached, which really helped me get clear on the specific work environments I'd do well in) because I realized I was saying yes to anything that sounded exciting.

If they answer cleanly, great. If they dodge, hand-wave, or act offended, that’s also an answer.

What’s your go-to “tell me how the money works” question that makes people either get real or shut down?

Genuine question because I can't tell anymore.

I've been in my current role for about 18 months and the past few months have been rough. I'm making mistakes I didn't used to make, I dread opening my laptop in the morning, and I keep wondering if I'm just not cut out for this type of work.

But here's the thing - I don't know if it's the role itself or if it's just been a stressful few months and I'm burned out. How do you separate "this job is wrong for me" from "I'm tired and need a break"?

Some things that make me think it's the role:

• The tasks that drain me most are the core responsibilities, not the extra stuff
• I'm good at parts of the job but those parts are maybe 20% of what I actually do
• I feel like I'm forcing myself to care about things that other people on my team seem naturally interested in

Some things that make me think it's just a bad stretch:

• I liked this job fine for the first year
• The team and manager are solid, no toxic stuff
• The market sucks right now and leaving feels risky

I took one of those career personality tests a few weeks back (the Coached one) and it basically confirmed I'm way better suited for strategic/big-picture work than detail-execution work, which is unfortunately most of what I do now. But I don't know if that means I should bail or just try to shift responsibilities.

For people who've been here, what made you realize it was time to move vs stick it out? And if you did leave, how did you know the next thing would be better and not just different?