← Back to context

Comment by PheonixPharts

2 years ago

> compensation packages that truly gifted AI researchers can make now

I guess it depends on your definition of "truly gifted" but, working in this space, I've found that there is very little correlation between comp and quality of AI research. There's absolutely some brilliant people working for big names and making serious money, there's also plenty of really talented people working for smaller startups doing incredible work but getting paid less, academics making very little, and even the occasional "hobbyist" making nothing and churning out great work while hiding behind an anime girl avatar.

OpenAI clearly has some talented people, but there's also a bunch of the typical "TC optimization" crowd in there these days. The fact that so many were willing to resign with sama if necessary appears largely because they were more concerned with losing their nice compensation packages than any of their obsession with doing top tier research.

Two people I knew recently left Google to join OpenAI. They were solid L5 engineers on the verge of being promoted to L6, and their TC is now $900k. And they are not even doing AI research, just general backend infra. You don't need to be gifted, just good. And of course I can't really fault them for joining a company for the purpose of optimizing TC.

  • > their TC is now $900k

    As a community we should stop throwing numbers around like this when more than half of this number is speculative. You shouldn't be able to count it as "total compensation" unless you are compensated.

  • Google itself is now filled with TC optimizing folks, just one level lower than the ones at Open AI.

  • > their TC is now $900k.

    Everyone knows that openai TC is heavily weighted by ~~RSUs~~ options that themselves are heavily weighted by hopes and dreams.

  • the thing about mentioning compensation numbers on HN is you will get tons of pissy/ressentiment-y replies

    • I don't care about these. I care about the readers who might not have done job searching recently and might not know their worth in the market.

"...even the occasional "hobbyist" making nothing and churning out great work while hiding behind an anime girl avatar."

the people i often have the most respect for.

Definitely true of even normal software engineering; my experience has been the opposite of expectations, that TC-creep has infected the industry to an irreparable degree and the most talented people I've ever worked around or with are in boring, medium-sized enterprises in the midwest US or australia, you'll probably never hear of them, and every big tech company would absolutely love to hire them but just can't figure out the interview process to weed them apart from the TC grifters.

TC is actually totally uncorrelated with the quality of talent you can hire, beyond some low number that pretty much any funded startup could pay. Businesses hate to hear this, because money is easy to turn the dial up on; but most have no idea how to turn the dial up on what really matters to high talent individuals. Fortunately, I doubt Ilya will have any problem with that.

  • I find this hard to believe having worked in multiple enterprises and in the FAANG world.

    In my anecdotal experience, I can only think of one or two examples of someone from the enterprise world who I would consider outstanding.

    The overall quality of engineers is much higher at the FAANG companies.

    • I have also worked in multiple different sized companies, including FAANG, and multiple countries. My assessment is that FAANGs tend to select for generally intelligent people who can learn quickly and adapt to new situations easily but who nowadays tend to be passionless and indifferent to anything but money and prestige. Personally I think passion is the differentiator here, rather than talent, when it comes to doing a good job. Passion means caring about your work and its impact beyond what it means for your own career advancement. It means caring about building the best possible products where “best” is defined as delivering the most value for your users rather than the most value for the company. The question is whether big tech is unable to select for passion or whether there are simply not enough passionate people to hire when operating at FAANG scale. Most likely it’s the latter.

      So I guess I agree with both you and the parent comment somewhat in that in general the bar is higher at FAANGs but at the same time I have multiple former colleagues from smaller companies who I consider to be excellent, passionate engineers but who cannot be lured to big tech by any amount of money or prestige (I’ve tried). While many passionless “arbitrary metric optimizers” happily join FAANGs and do whatever needs to be done to climb the ladder without a second thought.

      1 reply →

  • perfect sort of thing to say to get lots of upvotes, but absolutely false in my experience at both enterprise and bigtech