Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

A.I. researchers are making more than $1M, even at a nonprofit

nytimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 176 posts

Re: A.I. researchers are making more than $1M, even at a nonprofit

#11

Post by mellosouls »

rantwasp wrote: post #5
high_derivative wrote: post #3

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, it's not. Im an AI researcher at a big tech company. It would have been far wiser financially to start as a software engineer after my Bachelor's. Also, having a few NEURIPS or ICML papers is not a hiring guarantee any more. It's decidedly not 2015-17 any longer. In particular, I feel bad for the people who started their PhDs with $$$ in their eyes around that time. Don't get me wrong, they will all be employable…

Isn't this always the case though? A PhD is a long term investment and the field that you go into is probably not the one that will be hot when you finish your PhD. So driving your decisions on $$$ seems foolish at best.

Yep. If you're empty enough to follow a PhD solely for the money, there are far safer financial bets. Go into medicine or something. Not that I'd want to experience that bedside manner...

Re: A.I. researchers are making more than $1M, even at a nonprofit

#13

Post by [deleted] »

rm999 wrote: post #6

> A third big name in the field, the roboticist Pieter Abbeel, made $425,000, though he did not join until June 2016, after taking a leave from his job as a professor at the University of California, Berkeley. Those figures all include signing bonuses. 425k after signing bonus is probably closer to 300-350k base + annual bonus, which feels low for someone in such a distinguished position (close to a typical specializ…

[deleted]

Re: A.I. researchers are making more than $1M, even at a nonprofit

#14

Post by codingslave »

rm999 wrote: post #6

> A third big name in the field, the roboticist Pieter Abbeel, made $425,000, though he did not join until June 2016, after taking a leave from his job as a professor at the University of California, Berkeley. Those figures all include signing bonuses. 425k after signing bonus is probably closer to 300-350k base + annual bonus, which feels low for someone in such a distinguished position (close to a typical specializ…

Yeah its really not that high. I was reading the Ian Goodfellow, creator of GANs, was only making 800k at google. Which is honestly, really low for someone who has done ground breaking research in neural networks.

Re: A.I. researchers are making more than $1M, even at a nonprofit

#15

Post by hdrujvw-4579 »

high_derivative wrote: post #3
alphagrep12345 wrote: post #2

How replicable is this thing? Looking from a monetary perspective, is it worth getting a Ph.D. in AI? Assuming you like both academic research and working in the industry, if you were to make a choice whether to do a Ph.D. or not, how would you make it?

No, it's not. Im an AI researcher at a big tech company. It would have been far wiser financially to start as a software engineer after my Bachelor's. Also, having a few NEURIPS or ICML papers is not a hiring guarantee any more. It's decidedly not 2015-17 any longer. In particular, I feel bad for the people who started their PhDs with $$$ in their eyes around that time. Don't get me wrong, they will all be employable…

>I have my doubts there will be cushy FAANG jobs for everyone capable of playing around with network architectures in a few years.

Presumably because technical needs of FAANG might be moving in other directions. Could someone comment why this might be the case, and what other fields might look relevant

Re: A.I. researchers are making more than $1M, even at a nonprofit

#16

Post by high_derivative »

rantwasp wrote: post #5
high_derivative wrote: post #3

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, it's not. Im an AI researcher at a big tech company. It would have been far wiser financially to start as a software engineer after my Bachelor's. Also, having a few NEURIPS or ICML papers is not a hiring guarantee any more. It's decidedly not 2015-17 any longer. In particular, I feel bad for the people who started their PhDs with $$$ in their eyes around that time. Don't get me wrong, they will all be employable…

Isn't this always the case though? A PhD is a long term investment and the field that you go into is probably not the one that will be hot when you finish your PhD. So driving your decisions on $$$ seems foolish at best.

Yes, that is always a case, but with deep learning, the hype train I feel was uniquely big in terms of salaries and money in the space.

Re: A.I. researchers are making more than $1M, even at a nonprofit

#17

Post by nefitty »

mellosouls wrote: post #11
rantwasp wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Isn't this always the case though? A PhD is a long term investment and the field that you go into is probably not the one that will be hot when you finish your PhD. So driving your decisions on $$$ seems foolish at best.

Yep. If you're empty enough to follow a PhD solely for the money, there are far safer financial bets. Go into medicine or something. Not that I'd want to experience that bedside manner...

It is not fair to call someone "empty" because their motivation stems from something you don't share. It does not make their work and contribution any less difficult or necessary.

Re: A.I. researchers are making more than $1M, even at a nonprofit

#18

Post by nharada »

alphagrep12345 wrote: post #2

How replicable is this thing? Looking from a monetary perspective, is it worth getting a Ph.D. in AI? Assuming you like both academic research and working in the industry, if you were to make a choice whether to do a Ph.D. or not, how would you make it?

I do R&D in computer vision, and everyone is shocked when I tell them that the roles don't pay that much better than software engineering. Articles like these make people assume you can make 2-3x what you would as a software engineer at the same level of experience (remember a fresh PhD has ~5 years research experience), and it's usually not the case. The actual multiplier is something like 1.3-1.5x. I had one offer come in under the equivalent software role at the same company.

I also suspect that other fields have similar patterns where a few experts make a ton of money, they're just not as publicized because the media is so hyped on AI. How much you think Jim Keller is making?

TL;DR do the PhD because you love the research. If you want the money do some internships, land a FAANG job, and try and get to senior as fast as possible.

Re: A.I. researchers are making more than $1M, even at a nonprofit

#19

Post by jorblumesea »

Serious question, is this value justified? I don't have any contact with AI development or AI researchers. Do they really bring that much value to the business? It makes sense that for Google, these positions would have almost unlimited clean data. But many companies are not Google.

Re: A.I. researchers are making more than $1M, even at a nonprofit

#20

Post by eli_gottlieb »

alphagrep12345 wrote: post #2

How replicable is this thing? Looking from a monetary perspective, is it worth getting a Ph.D. in AI? Assuming you like both academic research and working in the industry, if you were to make a choice whether to do a Ph.D. or not, how would you make it?

As someone presently doing a PhD in machine learning and neuroscience, which includes submitting to AI conferences...

Frankly, I think this is a bubble, and don't expect to ever make anything like that much money, in academia or industry. Yes, deep learning has a lot of successes and industrial applications, but deep learning wizards are not nearly so impossible to replace or replicate. As the field settles more towards engineering than wizardry, and as expectations are recalibrated towards the realistic, it's going to stop raining cash.

Post reply on HN