231–240 of 276 posts
Author is going to Halodi Robotics. I always thought that human shaped robots are a terrible form factor. Why limit yourself to the awkward design that 3.77 billion years of evolution accidentally landed on?
I don't want to derail the conversation, but OPs career path really stood out to me. He graduated in 2016, worked at Google in Bay Area, and now is joining a startup at a VP level. I graduated in 2008, obtained a PhD in 2014 in a no name EU university, worked in odd companies for a while and joined FAANG 4 years ago as a mid level developer, where I am still ATM. Looking at this disparity I wonder what could be possi…
Probably 1 + 3 + 4. He didn't just work at Google, he worked at Google Brain. And with only a Bachelor's, so I assume he's is both very smart and got very lucky.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This describes 95% of machine learning at FAANG+, unfortunately nobody likes to talk about. Context: I work at a FAANG.
God, and it's such a snooze-fest. Writing TFX code at Google is like having your soul-sucked through your rear-end! Imagine TF1 with all the broken APIs, but now it's all distributed! Fun.
This post reeks of someone who doesnt ‘need’ a job and has made enough money already. Good for op to go after ‘exciting problems’ rather than the mundane will I make rent and fees
I don't think many machine learning folks working for FAANG are worrying about such things.
"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).
People are conflating SWE (or "research scientist" in name) bands with research scientist bands at labs like Brain. This guy is an outlier. "You can only be level X with compensation Y after Z YOE" is one of the greatest infohazards in tech.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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…
It’s definitely a tradeoff. I personally have gone through alternate phases where I wanted to be responsible for a huge piece of a small pie (startup) versus a tiny tiny piece of a huge pie (big company). There are pros and cons to both. The big slice of small pie feels cooler and more satisfying to my ego, but in the absolute sense the tiny piece of the big pie probably is actually making a bigger difference. 1% imp…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
General intelligence has been 20 years away since the 60s, along with fusion power and a bunch of other things. In marketing, they say 5 years when it's actually 20 years away.
In my view, AGI is farther away than fusion. We know how to do fusion. We know the physics behind it. We haven't yet figured out how to build profitable fusion plants, and we probably won't for a long time, if for no other reason than improvements in fission--modern fission plants are the best . When it comes to AGI, we have no clue. It's a constantly moving target, because our conceptions of intelligence evolve. Mos…
Has nature ever proven that nuclear fusion can be sustained at human scale?
I would bet that agi comes first.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If he's actual top talent as opposed to a poseur who's good at self-promotion, he should stay in academia for his own sake because he'll be crushed in the corporate world. Actual high IQ people get clobbered in corporate, while OKR-ing charlatans climb the ranks effortlessly... yes, even at FAANGs.
What makes you think academia is any different?