> people doing work they have no formal qualification to do
These can be bad and good.. Depends on the domain, and regulatory overstepping / guilding. Let's take electricity at home. In some countries, you cannot change a lightbulb if you're not "certified" electrician, repairing one's water heater is unthinkable, re-making house's electrical wiring-and-switches-and-contacts infrastructure unimaginable. In other countries, noone gives a damn - if one knows-how and can do it, do it. And people seems wise enough to judge whether to play with that or not. And i have not heard of any difference in injuries/deaths from these. So in this case, "credentials" are an artificial thing.
On the other extreme.. any 5y old is capable of holding a gun and shooting someone from 2 meters. So in that case, guns should better not be available at all. And as consequence, very few countries allow weaponry to proliferate - in this case, strong regulation is required.. And credentials/can-be-trusted might matter..
The one difference between "can do" and "should be trusted to do" is the ability to systematically prove that "can do" holds up close to 100% of task instances and under adverserial conditions.
Hacking and pentesting are already scaling fully autonomously - and systematically.
For now, lower level targets aren't yet attractive as such scale requires sophisticated (state) actors, but that is going to change.
So building systems that white-hat prove your code is not only functional but competent are going to be critical not to be ripped apart by black-hat later on.
One nice example that applies this quite nicely is roborev [0] by the legendary Wes McKinney.
This is a good point. You're right that adversarial testing provides one form of validation that doesn't depend on credentials if the system holds up under systematic attack, that's evidence of competence regardless of who built it.
But I think there's a distinction worth making between technical robustness (does the code have vulnerabilities?) and epistemic legitimacy (should we trust the analysis/conclusions?).
Pentesting and formal verification can tell us whether a system is secure or functions correctly. That's increasingly automatable and credential-independent because the code either survives adversarial conditions or it doesn't.
But what about domains where validation is murkier? Cross-domain analysis, research synthesis, strategic thinking, design decisions? These require judgment calls where "correct" isn't binary. The work can be rigorous and well-reasoned without being formally provable.
The roborev example is interesting because code review is somewhat amenable to systematic validation. But we're also seeing AI collaboration extend into domains where adversarial testing isn't cleanly applicable—policy analysis, theoretical frameworks, creative work with analytical components.
I wonder if we need different validation frameworks for different types of work. Technical systems: adversarial testing and formal verification. Analytical/intellectual work: something else entirely. But what?
The deeper question: when the barrier to producing superficially plausible work drops to near-zero, how do we distinguish genuinely rigorous thinking from sophisticated-sounding nonsense? Credentials were a (flawed) heuristic for that. What replaces them in domains where adversarial testing doesn't apply?
I work in a field that has a strong glass ceiling, and the only way through is with a PhD (some employers are starting to recognize that, with several years of experience, people with a bachelor's or master's degree can attain the same level of independence and mastery that you'd demand from a PhD, but it's still kinda rare).
But even having a PhD isn't enough to establish credibility during the interview process, as there are plenty of PhDs who are incompetent. It's really more of a thing that gets your foot in the door - a signal that it's plausible that this candidate could have the juice.
The solution is that after the usual interview steps (resume, phone screen, etc), the candidate gives an hour long seminar on their research to 10-20 people (really 45 minutes of material + 15 minutes of questions). It's basically impossible to talk for that long about your research and the prior literature with a critical audience of experts and not reveal whether you actually know your stuff.
So in a sense, your vision has actually been achieved, but only within the group of people who have traditional credentials. The question of how to open this up to anyone regardless of credentials is not something I'm going to be able to answer, but I certainly hope it does.
In terms of frameworks for evaluating competence, here's the questions I ask when deciding if someone is an expert (and what I get out of these questions in parentheses):
1) Has this person spent years doing something where they constantly discovered that they were wrong? (if you're never wrong, you're not learning and you're certainly not doing anything interesting, and might be a crank)
2) Did they have a mentor or group of expert peers who helped them grow and critiqued their work? (this both helps them grow on a daily basis and also plugs gaps in their knowledge and skills, and gives them new ways of thinking)
3) Have they built or discovered something non-trivial, and in the LLM era, do they actually understand what they built? (You can't really be sure your knowledge and skills are meaningful until you apply them)
4) Can they hold their own when being grilled by other people with deep experience in the same field, or adjacent fields? (This assumes the experts are arguing in good faith, but if you can either answer critical questions or convince someone that their questions are flawed, that's a great sign)
5) Do they have both depth and breadth in their knowledge of their field? (I think this one might get downplayed as it smacks of gatekeeping, but it's so easy to make huge errors or reinvent the wheel when you don't know what other people have already done, and don't know how your contribution fits into the work of others)
6) Can they explain their work on multiple levels of complexity? (Filters out people who are just trying to hide their incompetence with jargon)
7) Are they willing to say they don't know, when asked a question they don't know the answer to? (Cranks will never admit this)
> gatekeeping mechanisms
> people doing work they have no formal qualification to do
These can be bad and good.. Depends on the domain, and regulatory overstepping / guilding. Let's take electricity at home. In some countries, you cannot change a lightbulb if you're not "certified" electrician, repairing one's water heater is unthinkable, re-making house's electrical wiring-and-switches-and-contacts infrastructure unimaginable. In other countries, noone gives a damn - if one knows-how and can do it, do it. And people seems wise enough to judge whether to play with that or not. And i have not heard of any difference in injuries/deaths from these. So in this case, "credentials" are an artificial thing.
On the other extreme.. any 5y old is capable of holding a gun and shooting someone from 2 meters. So in that case, guns should better not be available at all. And as consequence, very few countries allow weaponry to proliferate - in this case, strong regulation is required.. And credentials/can-be-trusted might matter..
Adverserial work (be it agent or human).
The one difference between "can do" and "should be trusted to do" is the ability to systematically prove that "can do" holds up close to 100% of task instances and under adverserial conditions.
Hacking and pentesting are already scaling fully autonomously - and systematically.
For now, lower level targets aren't yet attractive as such scale requires sophisticated (state) actors, but that is going to change.
So building systems that white-hat prove your code is not only functional but competent are going to be critical not to be ripped apart by black-hat later on.
One nice example that applies this quite nicely is roborev [0] by the legendary Wes McKinney.
0: https://github.com/roborev-dev/roborev
This is a good point. You're right that adversarial testing provides one form of validation that doesn't depend on credentials if the system holds up under systematic attack, that's evidence of competence regardless of who built it.
But I think there's a distinction worth making between technical robustness (does the code have vulnerabilities?) and epistemic legitimacy (should we trust the analysis/conclusions?).
Pentesting and formal verification can tell us whether a system is secure or functions correctly. That's increasingly automatable and credential-independent because the code either survives adversarial conditions or it doesn't.
But what about domains where validation is murkier? Cross-domain analysis, research synthesis, strategic thinking, design decisions? These require judgment calls where "correct" isn't binary. The work can be rigorous and well-reasoned without being formally provable.
The roborev example is interesting because code review is somewhat amenable to systematic validation. But we're also seeing AI collaboration extend into domains where adversarial testing isn't cleanly applicable—policy analysis, theoretical frameworks, creative work with analytical components.
I wonder if we need different validation frameworks for different types of work. Technical systems: adversarial testing and formal verification. Analytical/intellectual work: something else entirely. But what?
The deeper question: when the barrier to producing superficially plausible work drops to near-zero, how do we distinguish genuinely rigorous thinking from sophisticated-sounding nonsense? Credentials were a (flawed) heuristic for that. What replaces them in domains where adversarial testing doesn't apply?
>traditional signals of competence—credentials, institutional validation, experience markers—no longer reliably predict capability
They never did anyway.
(And I do have those things ...)
I work in a field that has a strong glass ceiling, and the only way through is with a PhD (some employers are starting to recognize that, with several years of experience, people with a bachelor's or master's degree can attain the same level of independence and mastery that you'd demand from a PhD, but it's still kinda rare).
But even having a PhD isn't enough to establish credibility during the interview process, as there are plenty of PhDs who are incompetent. It's really more of a thing that gets your foot in the door - a signal that it's plausible that this candidate could have the juice.
The solution is that after the usual interview steps (resume, phone screen, etc), the candidate gives an hour long seminar on their research to 10-20 people (really 45 minutes of material + 15 minutes of questions). It's basically impossible to talk for that long about your research and the prior literature with a critical audience of experts and not reveal whether you actually know your stuff.
So in a sense, your vision has actually been achieved, but only within the group of people who have traditional credentials. The question of how to open this up to anyone regardless of credentials is not something I'm going to be able to answer, but I certainly hope it does.
In terms of frameworks for evaluating competence, here's the questions I ask when deciding if someone is an expert (and what I get out of these questions in parentheses):
1) Has this person spent years doing something where they constantly discovered that they were wrong? (if you're never wrong, you're not learning and you're certainly not doing anything interesting, and might be a crank)
2) Did they have a mentor or group of expert peers who helped them grow and critiqued their work? (this both helps them grow on a daily basis and also plugs gaps in their knowledge and skills, and gives them new ways of thinking)
3) Have they built or discovered something non-trivial, and in the LLM era, do they actually understand what they built? (You can't really be sure your knowledge and skills are meaningful until you apply them)
4) Can they hold their own when being grilled by other people with deep experience in the same field, or adjacent fields? (This assumes the experts are arguing in good faith, but if you can either answer critical questions or convince someone that their questions are flawed, that's a great sign)
5) Do they have both depth and breadth in their knowledge of their field? (I think this one might get downplayed as it smacks of gatekeeping, but it's so easy to make huge errors or reinvent the wheel when you don't know what other people have already done, and don't know how your contribution fits into the work of others)
6) Can they explain their work on multiple levels of complexity? (Filters out people who are just trying to hide their incompetence with jargon)
7) Are they willing to say they don't know, when asked a question they don't know the answer to? (Cranks will never admit this)