Why is that resignation-worthy?
I feel like the article implies that ChatGPT was used more broadly but never gets around to saying how.
Maybe this is the backlash-worthy part. It sounds like what they did was use an LLM to dig up any "dirt" so to speak about candidates then manually verified any of that.
I'd be worried that this process would let some people off the hook (not sure what vetting they are doing, or how right/wrong it is, etc.)
But yeah wish there were more details