Analysis Summary:

The article's accuracy is mixed. The core claim about AI impacting tech job prospects is plausible but lacks direct verification from the provided sources. The article appears to be soliciting personal experiences, which inherently introduces potential for subjective bias and selective reporting.

Detailed Analysis:

• Claim 1:** Companies using A.I. tools to automate tasks like coding are changing job prospects for recent grads and college students.
• Verification Source #1: Supports the claim that companies using AI tools are changing job prospects.
• Verification Source #3: Mentions layoffs and hiring freezes impacting the job market, which could be related to AI adoption but doesn't explicitly confirm the AI link.
• Fail to cover:* The specific impact of AI on coding tasks and the extent of this change.
• Claim 2:** The article is soliciting personal experiences from recent grads and college students.
• Verification Source #1: Confirms the article is asking for people to share their experiences.
• Verification Source #3: Also confirms a similar request for personal experiences related to tech jobs and internships.
• Fail to cover:* The specific types of experiences the article is seeking beyond the general topic.

Supporting Evidence/Contradictions:

• Verification Source #1 and Verification Source #3 both confirm that the NY Times is soliciting personal experiences related to the tech job market.
• Verification Source #1 supports the claim that AI is impacting job prospects.
• Verification Source #2, Verification Source #4, and Verification Source #5 are tangentially related to internships and tech jobs but do not directly address the claims in the article.
• Lack of Coverage:* The provided sources do not offer specific data or evidence to quantify the impact of AI on tech job prospects or to verify the extent to which coding tasks are being automated.