Asking this to HN might result in biased answers, but I'm interested if people think of applying "AI" (broadly) as an engineering problem to solve or one that requires some kind of scientific thinking about what's under the hood. Or does this depend on what exactly is meant by AI?
Ask HN: Should the CTO of an AI company be a scientist or an engineer?
1–8 of 8 posts
Re: Ask HN: Should the CTO of an AI company be a scientist or an engineer?
#2Probably depends on what exactly the product is.
For example, many consulting firms do not really sell technology. They sell handholding for organizations scared/unable to figure out technology and they quite often screw up the actual technology itself without any real consequence. There are plenty of companies where whether something actually works is not a key determinant of sales/revenue.
Re: Ask HN: Should the CTO of an AI company be a scientist or an engineer?
#3Probably depends on what exactly the product is. For example, many consulting firms do not really sell technology. They sell handholding for organizations scared/unable to figure out technology and they quite often screw up the actual technology itself without any real consequence. There are plenty of companies where whether something actually works is not a key determinant of sales/revenue.
In consulting "AI" firms, do you think engineering is more necessary than the actual AI part? To me, it seems that in those situations, knowing when and where to apply certain models could actually solve a lot of business problems for a client.
Re: Ask HN: Should the CTO of an AI company be a scientist or an engineer?
#4I have no idea what you make.
But if it’s a “pure” AI solution then I feel like the CEO should be the AI engineer or person who came up with the idea or first iteration of the product.
CTO should probably be in charge of making deals with AWS/GCP/whatever and setting a technical direction for the company. CEO should try to be the person who is the image of the company as they make deals with people who will actually buy and use the product.
Re: Ask HN: Should the CTO of an AI company be a scientist or an engineer?
#5Are you creating AI or are you applying AI to enhance or create new workflows?
If you're applying, you need an engineer who can build product and ship it. Not a scientist.
If you're creating new AI or models, you need a scientist who can actually do that work.
Re: Ask HN: Should the CTO of an AI company be a scientist or an engineer?
#6Are you creating AI or are you applying AI to enhance or create new workflows? If you're applying, you need an engineer who can build product and ship it. Not a scientist. If you're creating new AI or models, you need a scientist who can actually do that work.
In either case you can hire people to build and ship. But should the CTO also be one of those people?
Re: Ask HN: Should the CTO of an AI company be a scientist or an engineer?
#7Are you creating AI or are you applying AI to enhance or create new workflows? If you're applying, you need an engineer who can build product and ship it. Not a scientist. If you're creating new AI or models, you need a scientist who can actually do that work.
In either case you can hire people to build and ship. But should the CTO also be one of those people?
If you're starting out and you're just two dudes, why wouldn't the CTO be a builder? If the CTO is just managing, who exactly would he be managing the first year?
Re: Ask HN: Should the CTO of an AI company be a scientist or an engineer?
#8Earlier quoted context omitted.
In either case you can hire people to build and ship. But should the CTO also be one of those people?
If you're starting out and you're just two dudes, why wouldn't the CTO be a builder? If the CTO is just managing, who exactly would he be managing the first year?
Sorry, I didn't mean to imply that I was talking about an early stage startup. If anything, I mean a 50+ person company. I agree if it's 2 people, you probably want someone to be shipping stuff all the time.