Holy fucking crap, think I actually got some productive, positive output from this whole generative AI debacle.
Rather because I skipped the whole Prompt step and used FOMO blabber against itself.

Some context: at my last gig we had a whole "humanware procurement department" (A.K.A. "hiring managers", those fucks who think that javascript and java are the same thing). It was during the pandemic tech hiring boom. At this new joint I'm at, a MUCH smaller company, I gotta do it myself. Boring as fuck but at least I can get some good karma by not making an ass of myself for candidates, and trying to make this whole process a tad less abusive.
I got my reading up to date, and surprisingly enough, "yankee dandy" (HBR) has actually been saying one or two things that are not complete hogwash. For a start, they say that companies have been making their hiring processes overly complex and even after hours of interviews they hardly measure half the skills they actually need, and spend too long talking about many skills that are not actually required for the positions.
"Huh. That sounds like the inneficiencies that the stupid 'AI will make meetings more efficient' industry is overpromising to overturn"

So I tried a new thing. Instead of your off-the-shelf "solve this NP-Hard problem in O(1) then draw this bird using only your nose then invert a binary tree in COBOL then tell me what type of sitcom character are you" crap, I tried grasping how it would be like to work with the candidates. One at a time. Not too long, but not too short talks. I'm not trying to check if a kid really knows how to implement a solution for the TSP in apache spark, or if they know every cipher in TLS 1.3. I just want to know if they can understand a technical request and come to me with a plan on how to solve it without handholding or "just use a really big VM, like, 32Tb of RAM!"
Thus, if I can work with them. That's all. The rest are specific skills that can be trained in time, if the person is willing to learn new stuff.
But that is not good enough for HR, ooooh, no. You "need" an "objective way of measuring their skills", otherwise its "just biased opinions."

But that gave me an idea.
See, our HR VP is someone deep in the whole AI pyramid scheme, who drank the kool-aid and swallowed up even the cup. FOMO is their name. Hype is their business.
I posh'd up my bullshit'ish jargon and went whole "In the advent of new disruptive technologies, strategic skills can be acquired with grit and proper AI prompting. Thus, leveraging our collaborative intelligence capabilities we can hack our challenges and optimize our resources to offer more innovative opportunities and bolster our employer branding" - translation: "shut up and lemme hire someone good and reasonably priced instead of a sleazy smooth talker who wants 100M just to show up and play with chatgpt all day". The whole point is to make it sound like "we're using AI, so it's good" instead of "im doing the work I'm being paid for, so it's old-fashioned"

It seems like the HR troll swallowed it, bait and hook. Maybe all we really needed this whole time is to say the magic word "AI," especially if it makes absolutely no sense in the context. Now I want to get them to sign off on a "AI mindfulness bolstering platform" (a massage chair). Fingers crossed.