It is not about overcoming human nature like HR tries to force things like that.
> Why wouldn’t I verify any junior that asked me?
This tells me that there will be people signing up to do that and earn the benefits of verifying others.
AI is the hands, the person building it has to be the brain, they will have to understand what they told the AI to do so they can create accurate requirements and of course system design, so they AI can build things with less error margin.
> How are you going to prove they did it?
A good pilot is not the one who never uses autopilot. A good pilot is the one who knows when to trust the autopilot, when to override it, and how to land the plane manually when the screens go black. You can prove someone knows their job by looking at those moments of override and decision-making, not by staring at the autopilot screen
> On my side, I never look at resumes, I don’t really care what technology you know. AI can write code and you can learn new technology. I want to know how you think through problems, how you learn, how you adapt and how you troubleshoot.
This is how it should be, and I never said that I don't agree with this, the purpose of the skill verification process is to verify these things as well, as I call it for now "personality section you can put on your CV2.0", I am sure someone experienced as you can be a verifier and can easily tell how some junior, mid or senior whatever is going to be a person you wanna work with and have the qualities of critical thinking, proactive problem solving that bring value
That is very interesting, it is like a starting filter for candidates which can catch candidates that might not be a fit for the job after all. Basically the candidate was lacking the discipline and patience to be able to handle paperwork and administrative duties to even start doing the job. Got me thinking how would it be possible to catch something like this before it happens, would be a very big challenge
So it all boils down to, handle the administrative challenge first, then make the boss happy and not make his life harder as well as everyone on the team and lastly for promotion simply be efficient, I like this framework it works so well.
I think these all work for any industry, since defense is a bit stricter then there is a higher chance to avoid a bad hire.
Endorsements are good way, but limited and they can be bought and can be faked easily, which does not bring much credibility.Do you think there is a way to improve the endorsement system from LinkedIn into something that will be taken more seriously?
Yes that is the main assumption, seniors would not be interested in getting their skill verified they will be doing the verifying to a junior or whatever entry title there is, in order to help them gain their credibility even mentor them, so it would be easier for them to stand out.
That is a fair point, also that is going to be part of the verification process, engineers would be able to get badges verified for their projects, atm I can AI generate a whole project and add it to my portfolio, without having to do the system design work, but if I get into the verification process, then I would be able to prove I did it if I really did by explaining my system design, decisions, compromises so on.
Yes absolutely, I am looking for framework that will be included in the platform to be able to asses someone and determine those accurately skills to have them in the CV it is not easy and it is a challenge, overall those skills can make a teammate be valued among others.
The AI interviews part is becoming very common as well, this is the issue I wanna solve since it is very easy to fake it while remote.
I have another question, have you ever faced with getting a perfect candidate during interviews this person passes fully it is great, everything matches but then after 1 or 2 months the just completely flip and are not the candidate(now employee) what you tought and everyone else tought they are?
Thank you for the feedback. It is meant to be all kinds of engineering, the vision is to have all type of engineers from software engineers(which you are correct it is focused full on that).
> How would this platform measure real engineering skills? Critical thinking, problem solving, etc.? What about Electrical Engineering? Civil Engineering? Robotics design? Etc
- This will be all up to the hand picked person to measure your skills, for example the verifier will be assessing everything required to determine if someone is really good or not, that includes critical thinking, problem solving so on. Let's say this verifier they work/ed for Google, they will bring Google's interview framework to this candidate software engineer in our case to asses their skills, the expected result would be "I passed the assessment, I could be good as an engineer at Google" which helps with credibility.
The platform itself will store the final decision on your profile (you can hide or show anything up to the user).
> I didn't open an account, but on the first page it asks for LinkedIn.. really? I don't trust most of what I read there. GitHub? Not only does it bring us back to software-related topics, but what if I don't use GitHub?
- Linkedin, github or gitlab are all optional fields, I have pushed a fix on that to communicate it better, thank you. I am thinking of making it a free link field to be portfolio rather than profile from github, gitlab or whatever else. Personally I understand this, not a fan of github at all, I just put it there since it is the most used.
This is how I imagine it and actually tested this concept and it worked and you are 100% right it brings a lot of results. What I did was fist meet and greet talk, then assign take at home project, after the project was done, then we discussed the decisions made and approaches and how the problem was solved, and talked about past projects from the portfolio. This reduced the chance significantly of a bad hire, and the candidates liked the concept a lot.
What don't you like the most from the current hiring processes? For example in software engineering for me is solving meaningless problems during interviews like reverse a binary tree that have nothing to do with the actual role.
This is a real insight "finding the most skilled candidate but rather the most compatible candidate", thank you very much, this is the kind of feedback I am looking for from engineers. I never looked at it from this perspective.
I talked to hiring managers and most of them say skills is good but what we want is a personality because skills can be taught and personality cannot be. Personality I have experienced that, very skilled teammate exceptional, but personality was not a fit, so the management was not happy.
"The best way to determine the right candidate is to ignore the nonsense on their resume and just talk to people.", that is true and this I have tried with when I was playing the role of hiring manager trying to find a team member to work with me in the company I worked for. I imagine the peer-to-peer verification framework like this talk to people and ask them personalized questions, this is how exceptional talent will be flushed out I think.
Given that, if you were to imagine a tool that helps surface those 'quietly exceptional' people—the ones who are highly skilled but won't self-identify—what would that tool look like? Does it even need to be a tool to begin with?
Thank you for the feedback, I appriciate it. The idea is to avoid the corruption and bias by hand picking a starter deck of super trusted few professionals who would be able to verify others.
For example to prove someone is an senior engineer from google I can ask for a pay slip and references and yes certifications, so we would become that rusted partner. Still working on the proposal and iterations, I wanna talk to much engineers, hiring manages as possible since this is going to be for everyone, to navigate this wild job market.
We definitely need better tools, at the moment it is wild that it takes 1000 of applications to just get an answer from any company, this not right at all
This tells me that there will be people signing up to do that and earn the benefits of verifying others.
AI is the hands, the person building it has to be the brain, they will have to understand what they told the AI to do so they can create accurate requirements and of course system design, so they AI can build things with less error margin.
> How are you going to prove they did it?
A good pilot is not the one who never uses autopilot. A good pilot is the one who knows when to trust the autopilot, when to override it, and how to land the plane manually when the screens go black. You can prove someone knows their job by looking at those moments of override and decision-making, not by staring at the autopilot screen
> On my side, I never look at resumes, I don’t really care what technology you know. AI can write code and you can learn new technology. I want to know how you think through problems, how you learn, how you adapt and how you troubleshoot.
This is how it should be, and I never said that I don't agree with this, the purpose of the skill verification process is to verify these things as well, as I call it for now "personality section you can put on your CV2.0", I am sure someone experienced as you can be a verifier and can easily tell how some junior, mid or senior whatever is going to be a person you wanna work with and have the qualities of critical thinking, proactive problem solving that bring value