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

The Machine Learning Job Market

evjang.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

161–170 of 276 posts

Re: The Machine Learning Job Market

#161

Post by water-your-self »

visarga wrote: post #132
going_ham wrote: post #71

This post feels like author is insecure about his position and wants to establish some validity. Having going through it all, it feels delusional at best. The glorified pattern matching can only take us so far. You know it's working as long as there is a pattern. I wouldn't call it a general intelligence per se. There is no "juice" in these algorithms. If we use these tools, we can immediately see where they fail and…

> The glorified pattern matching can only take us so far. This argument is becoming less and less convincing year by the year. We're amazed that things we were sure couldn't be done are actually done.

This argument has been on going, on and off, since the 1960s. Show me a research paper.

Re: The Machine Learning Job Market

#162

Post by water-your-self »

mysterEFrank wrote: post #146
opensrcken wrote: post #101

The post is not only too braggadocious for my taste, but some of the figures quoted are highly unlikely. I would personally not work for someone with this kind of ego, but there are many such people in positions of power. This article is representative of an attitude I'm seeing around the tech industry, and if this is indeed the level of "confidence" in the Bay, I don't think that's a good sign.

Eric Jang is top ML talent, these numbers are accurate. I work in ML and have followed his work for years

He claims to be solving general intelligence in 20 years. Your advocacy is not enough to convince me.

Re: The Machine Learning Job Market

#163

Post by water-your-self »

zcw100 wrote: post #152

After how many years of Facebook, instagram, youtubers, LinkedIn do people still not get it? This is the internet. How on earth can you verify the veracity of the authors statements? Everyone is discussing this like a blog post on themselves is an accurate portrayal of reality. It might be, but it might not. I'm not saying they're being dishonest, with they may be, but they are definitely not incentivized to give you…

Ah but its much more fun when everyone hosts their own blog.

Re: The Machine Learning Job Market

#164

Post by [deleted] »

hervature wrote: post #128
cletus wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

These outliers are rare but they do exist. I knew someone at Google who was hired as L3 straight out of college (as all non-PhDs are) and got promoted once a year to L6 (Staff) so 3 years. He got promoted to L7 2 years after that. It's a rare combination of talent and the right circumstances but it does happen.

I tried to hint at this by using quotes, I don't doubt that L6 is possible. But, please elucidate, are there L6s at Google making "low 7 figures"? From levels.fyi, there are no such reports. The average is about half and matches what I know from other companies. Those that are approaching 7 figures have at least a decade of experience. Anyway, the pay he describes is much closer to L8.

[deleted]

Re: The Machine Learning Job Market

#165

Post by xpe »

warner25 wrote: post #126

Can someone with only 6 years of experience make credible predictions about things 20 years in the future? I'm around 15 years of experience, and my appreciation for my own lack of knowledge and ability to make predictions still grows with every year.

I’ll bite on the above loaded question: Define experience. However you do, it should at least include work, education, and life in general, given that such experiences relate to the context or situation.

Re: The Machine Learning Job Market

#166

Post by vmception »

cellis wrote: post #125
vmception wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Levels fyi shows its FAANG money at all levels I have it listed alongside Google and Amazon and Facebook right now, what did you compare that seemed different? (They’re not reporting consistent 7 figures for any of them) did you see something more granular? Outside of publicly traded crypto companies you need to talk to a third party recruiter in that space Solana Labs, for example, one of many, was paying engineers…

It’s important to keep in mind that working at the next Solana Labs, Alameda Research etc is roughly equivalent in probability as getting drafted in the NBA. That is to say, there aren’t a lot of cases that happen.

I did say that

> For more typical results,

Re: The Machine Learning Job Market

#167

Post by sidibe »

alfor wrote: post #159
sidibe wrote: post #154

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You are confusing speed of iteration with speed of announcements. There is a lot of stuff that happens, like research and process building, at a big "slow" company like Google that Tesla doesn't even realize is needed yet. Tesla makes a stream of wildly optimistic announcements that makes it feel like it's closing the gap with Waymo for example, but there's no evidence that it is

The iterations happen way faster too. Look at Munro teardown of Tesla, he has never see a tenth of that rate of change ever. Look at what SpaceX accomplished. Look where OpenAI is given the time it’s been operating. Look at Tesla rate of production increase. It’s going to be very hard to compete with Tesla at this point. So much ressources, so much bright engineers, all the knowledge in manufacturing, all the trainin…

I guess the difference is you think they have more resources, more bright engineers, and I'm quite certain they don't. I'd guess Tesla has several times less engineers working on FSD than Waymo and making much lower salaries, and they are spread across large parts of the stack that Waymo can just tap into Google for.

Re: The Machine Learning Job Market

#168

Post by [deleted] »

redredrobot wrote: post #55
1024core wrote: post #26

"FAANG+similar : Low 7 figures compensation (staff level), technological lead on compute (~10 yr)" I don't know where OP is getting these figures from, but I doubt that FAANGs offer 7-figure comps to Staff-level people. It's probably more in the higher 6-figure level (400K - 600K).

Currently on the job market in the AI space in the Bay Area - 400k to 600k is senior level at FAANG + similar. Low 7 figures at staff wouldn't shock me (although I don't have any actual data on that)

[deleted]

Re: The Machine Learning Job Market

#169

Post by captaincaveman »

PartiallyTyped wrote: post #30
mellavora wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

where are you located?

Europe. I am open to relocating pretty much anywhere in Western Europe or Scandinavia so my horizons are pretty open.

So central or eastern Europe ... yeah, thats gonna be tough!

Re: The Machine Learning Job Market

#170

Post by anonymousDan »

hintymad wrote: post #149
awinter-py wrote: post #10

> The most important deciding factor for me was whether the company has some kind of technological edge years ahead of its competitors. A friend on Google’s logging team tells me he’s not interested in smaller companies because they are so technologically far behind Google’s planetary-scale infra that they haven’t even begun to fathom the problems that Google is solving now, much less finish solving the problems that…

I think this reasoning is flawed. Joining Google does not mean you get to solve interesting problems because you will most likely contribute incrementally to a vast body of work. You want to build the next-gen database? You have to come up with something way better than BigTable and Spanner. You want to build a queue service? You've got to come up with something way better than Google's PubSub, which optimizes itself…

Yes or work on things that are fundamentally at odds with Google's business model, or on systems that in some way are difficult for Google to do because they have company-spe ific constraints or legacy systems
Post reply on HN