Is anyone instantly suspicious when they introduce themselves these days an "AI Developer"
replies(8):
Sometimes this industry is a lot like the "finance" industry: People struggling for credibility talk about it constantly, everywhere. They flex and bloviate and look for surrogates for accomplishments wherever they can be found. Peacocking on github, writing yet another tutorial on what tokens are and how embeddings work, etc.
That obviously doesn't mean in all cases, and there are loads of stellar talents that have a strong online presence. But by itself it is close to meaningless, and my experience is that it is usually a negative indicator.
But if you mostly mean in the sense that they don't have a fancy GitHub profile with a ton of followers... I agree, that does seem to be the case.
LinkedIn on the other hand... I sincerely can't imagine networking on LinkedIn being a fraction as useful as networking... Well, at work. For anyone that has a decent enough resume LinkedIn is basically only useful if you want a gutter trash news feed and to be spammed by dubious job offers 24/7. Could be wrong, but I'm starting to think you should really only stoop to LinkedIn in moments of desperation...
Do you actually think all development happens in public GitHub repos? Do you even think a majority does? Even a strong minority?
Across a number of enormous, well-known projects I've worked on, covering many thousands of contributors, including several very well known names, 0% of it exists in public Github repos. The overwhelming bulk of development is happening in the shadows.
If your "field" is "open source software", then sure. But if you're confused into thinking Github -- at least the tiny fraction that you can see -- is "the field" of software development or even just generally providing solutions, I can understand your weird belief about this.
Actually it is incredibly difficult, because you no longer have access to your previous employers' code bases and even if you do, it is illegal for you to show it to anyone.
Well, most are called "project manager" now. But it would still be a giant red flag, just like the project manager job title or even worse, using PM so you don't know exactly what it means.
So the person never does anything outside of his employer's IP? That's unfortunate, but as a heuristic, I'd like to see stuff that the person has done if they claim to be in a field.
Perhaps other people don't care, and will be convinced by expertise without evidence, but I'm busy, and my life is hard enough already: show me your code or gtfo. :-)
As a candidate I think LinkedIn is absolute trash - and toxic with all the ghost jobs and dark patterns. Feels like everyone else has the same opinion, or at the very least it is a common one. But when I have 50 candidates to review for 5 open positions, LinkedIn is going to give me great insight that I cannot really get anywhere else. I keep my profile current in the hopes that I'm not doing it for LinkedIn, but for the person researching me to see if I am a valid candidate for their role.
there is an entire industry of devs who work on meaningful projects, independently or for an employer who solve amazing problems and do amazing sh*t none of which is public or will ever be public.
I have signed more NDAs in my career than I have commits in public repos :)
Someone who worked on successful projects that shipped and are still out there, they can point you to that. You can buy the app, or device with their embedded code, or use the website or whatever. Not always an option for everyone, or not all the time.
That's one reason why there are skill tests in interviews. And why people ask for, and contact, references.
Public code can't be trusted. If you make that the yardstick for hiring people, then everyone and his dog will spin up some phony github repo with stuff that can't be confirmed to have been written by them. Goodhart's Law and all that.
You have no idea how much help someone had with the code in their github repo, or to what extent it is cribbed from somewhere else. Enter AI into the picture now, too.
Also, unless you are in CA many companies have extensive IP assignment clauses, which makes moonlighting on other projects potentially questionable.(especially if they are assholes)
My previous job made it hard to even submit bugs/fixes to open source projects we used internally. Often we just forked b/c bureaucracy (there's a reason it was my previous job)
Not saying your wrong, seeing someone's code is nice. As long as you are aware that you are leaving alot on the table by excluding those that do not have a presence. (Particularly older with kids)
Let someone call themselves whatever they want. If they can do the job they were hired for then... who cares?
And frankly, when you hire a manager or executive, there's not generally a single artifact that you could use to examine their value-add. You can see perhaps the trajectory of a company or a division or the size of their team over time, but you can't see the pile of ongoing decisions and conversations that produce actual value.
I think the flip side regarding code is, the stuff I do for fun outside of my employer's IP is not at all representative of what I do at work, or how. I pick topics that interest me, work in languages that my company doesn't use, etc, and because my purpose is learning and exploration, often it doesn't end up as a finished, working, valuable piece of tech. I deliberately don't do anything too close to my actual work both b/c that just feels like working longer and because I'm concerned it would make ownership of the code a bit fuzzy, and perhaps it would be inappropriate to consider open sourcing. Because my side projects are eclectic and didactic, I rarely put it in a public repo -- but it has served its purpose of teaching me something. If I shared all of my code side projects, they would show an unfocused person dabbling in a range of areas and not shipping anything useful, because that's what's fun ... whereas at work, I am focused in a few quite narrow areas, and working on customer-facing features, because the point is to build what the company needs rather than what I enjoy building.
i argue that its useful to have these shorthands to quickly understand what people do. its not so nice to just be default suspicious at a perhaps lower-technical-difficulty job that nevertheless a lot of comapnies want and a lot of people do
I think there's not a ton of political palatability for realizing most of their projects are like one API and a sane use of some SQL away.
I have removed my profile some time ago. While I agree with you in general, I have to say that initially LinkedIn was actually not bad and I did get some value out of it. It is a little harder now to not have it, because initial interviews scoff at its absence ( it apparently sends a negative signal to HR people ), but an established network of colleagues can overcome that.
I guess it is a little easier for people already established in their career. I still am kinda debating some sort of replacement for it, but I am honestly starting to wonder if github is just enough to stop HR from complaining.
If they can't I give the option to write some code that they like and they think shows off what they can do, usually suggesting to spend half an hour or a couple of hours on it.
To me it's an obvious red flag if there is nothing. It's as if talking to a graphics designer or photographer and they're like "no, sorry, I can't show a portfolio, I've only done secretive proprietary work and have never done anything for fun or practice".
Those that show me something get to talk about it with me. A casual chat about style, function, possible improvements and so on. Usually when they have nothing to show they also don't put in that half an hour to make something up, or get back with excuses about lack of inspiration or whatever, and that's where I say "thanks, but no thanks, good luck".
If you can't easily initiate a git repo and whip something up and send it to me in half an hour you won't be a good fit. It means you aren't fluent and lack in experience. I might consider internship, or a similar position where you mainly do something else, perhaps you're good at managing Linux servers or something but want to learn how to design programs and develop software as well.
The main difference between those professions and people who build software for a living is that they have organisations that predate modernity that keep tabs on their members and kick them out if they misbehave.
We should absolutely build such organisations, but there will be intense confrontations with industry and academia when we try, because capitalists hate when other people unionise and academics think they're the best at evaluating peers.
It's fine that your personal projects aren't polished products. They show your interests and some of how you adapt to and solve problems. It's something you've chosen to do because you wanted to, and not something you did because you were pressured by profit. The everyday grind at work wouldn't show what you'd do under more exceptional circumstances, which is where your personal character and abilities might actually matter, but what you do for fun or personal development likely does.
https://www.hanselman.com/blog/dark-matter-developers-the-un...
But we think it is, due to our learned industrious—which is the opposite of learned helplessness. We associate difficulty with reward. And we feel discomfort when really valuable things become very easy. Strange times.
Still have no idea how anyone can even hope to use the news feed there though. It's just a seemingly random torrent of garbage 24/7, with the odds of you getting any traction being virtually non existent.
Catchy job title.
I've never been challenged to explain any of the code my CV points to. I could have made it all up. If they randomly asked about something I have not looked at in a long a while, it could actually look like I don't know it! There is so much of it that I would have to study the code as a full time activity to be able to fluently spout off about any random sample of it.
I think I'm going to rearrange my resume to move the free software stuff farther down and maybe shorten it. It could come across as a negative.
Some hiring people genuinely don't understand why someone would put in a 40 hour week and then do some more on evenings and weekends. Well, I don't know how many. In my career I heard something along those lines from around two. Not everyone will tell you.
> You left college or high-school and walked straight into a job then learned to code there, or what?
It doesn't describe me, but does almost everyone I've ever known in the field (other than distant strangers met through online free-software-related channels, who are an obviously biased sample).
Typically the interviewer asks: "Tell me about something you worked on in this list of stuff you provided."
An interview isn't designed to trick you into failing random questions. It's to find out what you care about. You choose what to talk about. :-)
At least, that's how I engage in conversations. I want you to decide what you want to talk about so that I can get to know you.
In my experience when people say things like this what they're just projecting insecurity
Someone like you is extremely experienced and skilled, and has a reputation in your industry. You started working before it was normal and trivial to build stuff in public. Such activities were even frowned upon if I recall correctly (a friend got fired merely for emailing a dll to a friend to debug a crash; another was reprimanded for working on his own projects after hours at the office, even though he never intended to ever sell them).
That you have a reputation means posting work publicly would be of little to no value to your reputation. All the people who need to know you already do or know someone reputable who does.
That's only true if you don't know how to read code. I simply read their code and based on my level of expertise, I can determine if someone is at least at my level or if they are incompetent.
I'm younger, but not new to programming (started in the early 2000s.) Mentality-wise, I like working on software because I like solving problems, but I only really do a day job to make a living, not to scratch an itch, so I continue to work on software outside of work hours. I basically don't care what happens once my software reaches the Internet. I publish some open source software, but not as a portfolio; just for the sake of anyone who might find it useful. I don't really advertise my projects, certainly don't go out of my way to do so.
I basically have GitHub for roughly two reasons:
- I use a wide variety of open source software. I like to fix my own problems and report issues. Some projects require GitHub for this.
- May as well take advantage of the free storage and compute, since everyone else is.
Honestly, my GitHub is probably a pretty bad portfolio. It is not a curation of my best works, and I disabled as much of the "social" features as possible. It's just code that I write, which people may take or leave.
Earlier in my career maybe I cared more, but I honestly think it's because I thought you were supposed to care.
I have worked with some stellar programmers from many different places, probably more than I really deserved to. I don't know for sure if any of them didn't have GitHub accounts, but some of them definitely did have GitHub accounts, barren as they may have been.
I joined my current employer a bit over a month ago at this point and legal still hasn't authorized me to open a GitHub account or authorized me to use my personal account to report issues.
The process for me to submit a PR to an OSS project at my last firm took so long that by the time it got through legal review and I was authorized to see it through to the end, it had been 1.5 months and I went from having some free time to work on it at work to being swamped with work doing hardware bring-up and leading a massive redesign project.
Damn. You signed a contract that prevents you from ever publishing your own code? I guess everyone in the comments who are against have something to show in public all have security clearance or something. : ^ )
Do you think everyone you encounter is an idiot who just learned about the Internet yesterday? I started programming long before Github or Sourceforge even existed so given that all your assumptions about who you're talking to are so full of bad faith, I can only assume you have a chip on your shoulder and you don't know how to read what I wrote previously.
But none of that is relevant to my point, which is largely linguistic. If a person is doing a thing, then they are "a person who is doing the thing."
If a person is engineering, then they're an engineer by definition. That's not saying they're a good or bad engineer, just that's what they're doing.
There is a role for certifications, of course! But those certifications are intended to mark a lower boundary of ability, nothing more. Rather than overloading "engineer" to indicate that a person has a certification, I'd advocate calling them something like a "certified engineer". That would be correct and accurate, and wouldn't exclude a whole lot of great defacto engineers.