Personal Assistant

$20–34/hrrate as listed

micro1 is contracting experienced personal and executive assistants to produce and review AI training data covering scheduling, correspondence, and administrative judgment. You work remotely on your own schedule, writing realistic task examples and grading model outputs against how an assistant would actually handle the situation.

Summary, eligibility guidance and screening preparation are prepared by Sidequest from the platform's posting. Check the source listing before applying.

What the work involves

Day to day, you translate the ordinary mechanics of executive support into training material. That means writing multi-step scenarios — a double-booked calendar across three time zones, a vendor chasing an unpaid invoice, an executive who needs a difficult email softened without losing the point — and then documenting the correct handling, including the reasoning behind it. You'll also review model-generated drafts, itineraries, meeting summaries, and follow-up sequences, marking where they are factually wrong, tonally off, or missing an obvious next step a competent assistant would take.

Much of the value you add is in the details models get wrong: an assistant knows not to CC someone on a sensitive thread, knows a 4pm Friday meeting request needs a hedge, knows which of two conflicting priorities actually belongs to the principal. Task types vary by project cycle and may include preference-ranking between two responses, rewriting weak outputs, or building rubrics other reviewers use.

What the platform screens for

Verifiable support experience. micro1's screen is AI-led and conversational; expect follow-ups asking who you supported, at what level, and what you were actually responsible for. Vague answers stall quickly.
Written English under pressure. You'll likely be asked to draft or fix something short during the screen. Tone control matters as much as grammar.
Evaluation judgment. Can you explain why one response is better, in terms someone else could apply consistently?
Tool fluency. Calendars, cloud docs, and collaboration platforms — enough to describe real workflows, not just name products.

No AI or machine learning background is expected or required.

Logistics

Contractor engagement, fully remote, asynchronous. Observed pay for this listing runs $20–34/hr, typically banded by depth of experience and assessed writing quality — not guaranteed, and rates can shift between projects. Volume is project-driven: some contributors report steady 15–25 hours a week, others see intermittent batches. Reliable internet and responsiveness to task queues matter more than fixed hours.

What they look for

Organization
Time Management
Multitasking
Communication
Attention to Detail

Before you apply

Would you pass this screen?

Drawn from what this listing actually requires. Answered in your browser — nothing is sent to us, and we do not store your answers.

Do you have at least 5 years of documented hands-on experience in personal assistance, executive support, or administrative positions?
5+ years in personal assistance or administrative roles · preferred
Have you used digital calendar systems (e.g., Google Calendar, Outlook), cloud document platforms (e.g., Google Drive, OneDrive), and collaboration software (e.g., Slack, Asana, Trello) in a professional setting?
Proficiency with productivity and collaboration tools · preferred
Do you have verifiable experience working remotely or in distributed team environments for at least one year?
Remote work experience · preferred
Are you a native English speaker or do you have professional fluency sufficient to draft, edit, and proofread written materials for external stakeholders without significant revision?
Native or fluent English proficiency · required

0 of 4 answered

Included with this listing

Interview prep — 11 questions

Matched to what this platform's screening actually measures. Answer each out loud in 60–90 seconds: claim → concrete example → implication.

What it tests: Whether you can triage real chaos without losing sight of what actually matters to the business, and whether you'll re-negotiate or just drown trying to do everything.
A strong answer: A strong answer names specific stakeholders, describes the actual conflict (not a generic 'busy day'), explains your decision-making framework (impact, urgency, dependencies), and shows you either negotiated timelines or escalated when needed—not that you worked nights to fit it all in.
Where people lose it: Candidates often say 'I do it all' or 'I prioritize by deadline'—avoiding the harder truth that some things genuinely have to wait, and that saying no (or pushing back) is part of the job, not a failure.