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

AI.gov

ai.gov

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

131–140 of 266 posts

Re: AI.gov

#131

Post by phillipcarter »

cedws wrote: post #4

Our governments care dearly about "AI safety" (nobody actually knows what that means or is qualified to define it yet) but not a right to privacy.

If you read the fact sheet they released (linked to on the page) you can see there's some very specific things they're outlining with regards to safety: https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/statements-releases...

Your comment is a cynical one. The very people qualified to define something like AI safety for the US population is...the US Government. Which is what they're doing. If you don't like some of what they're doing, there's many pathways to making sure your voice is heard, including voting for people who would explicitly support your policy preferences.

Re: AI.gov

#132

Post by antisthenes »

HDThoreaun wrote: post #73
tomohelix wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I mean the grad assistant is basically a post-doc position isn't it? Considering the stability and perks from a government job, I think that is not too far from market rate. But go up and those 180k jobs would be easily 300-400K in the industry. I doubt anyone who can do that work would be interested in a measly 180K. Unless it comes with a visa...

I think you'd be surprised. Plenty of people are interested in going into public service and especially policy related work. The high industry salaries can actually be a positive here, they allow workers to be FIRE'd in a decade or less. At that point they can switch to a lower stress/higher impact gov job and the salary being lower isn't a huge problem.

You won't be able to FIRE on $180k for 10 years (or less), not even close.

The thing about FIRE is you actually need way more money than regular retirement, because you have to plan for a 40+year retirement instead of a 15-20 year one. On top of that you need a higher margin to account for uncertainty.

Re: AI.gov

#133

Post by b8 »

empath-nirvana wrote: post #9

The US government can't legally pay the salaries required to find AI experts right now (just look at the salaries on the open positions). So all this work will end up being done by contractors who _can_ pay those salaries while the contractors skim off the top. The US really needs a special schedule for software developers if they want technical expertise in house (and they really should have technical expertise in h…

Yep, the US government gives contracts for a lot of stuff like cybersecurity etc. because the GS pay scale can't compete with the private industry standard.

Re: AI.gov

#134

Post by antisthenes »

ibejoeb wrote: post #130
layer8 wrote: post #110

Earlier quoted context omitted.

At the same time, moving to the US is unattractive for a significant portion of the talent (not the least due to the US’ socio-cultural-political climate), and working remotely for a US company comes with its own difficulties.

There is unbridled immigration to the US. I truly can't think of a cohort for which the US is unattractive.

There are definitely small ideological, well-off pockets of Europeans, who enjoy living in high safety net countries and don't really want to trade one developed country for another.

They don't necessarily have the skills to draw high US tech salaries either.

But for the vast majority, like you said, the US is extremely attractive.

Re: AI.gov

#135

Post by lettergram »

RIMR wrote: post #75
lettergram wrote: post #15

[flagged]

Imagine if you had clicked the link and learned that this was a site for finding AI-based Government jobs, and not some sort of regulatory statement where the government was planning to "ban AI models". But that would require basic literacy, something that conservative reactionaries simply don't have.

Right at the top there’s a link to the executive order requiring regulations and certifications from government for LLMs

Re: AI.gov

#136

Post by userabchn »

tsunamifury wrote: post #31

So far the support of Apple, Google, Microsoft, Facebook and Cisco/Akami have given the US government a business, intelligence, and social engineering platform the likes the world has never seen before, and still people today wildly undervalue its power in the world today. They have effectively deplatformed Europe, South America, the Middle East and Asia, put anyone but China within second reach from a mass data coll…

I think the foreign influence operations that aim to increase division in American society and promote equality of outcome are an attempt to counter it, not by outcompeting America but by hobbling it, seem to be somewhat effective.

Re: AI.gov

#137

Post by hipadev23 »

claytongulick wrote: post #120
aduffy wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Recoding America[1] is an excellent book about this problem, but it extends a lot further than just contractors charging inflated rates. The government itself has a culture that is so averse to trying new things and compliance with existing policy that it's actually dangerous to the careers of civil servants to do anything innovative, because that is one of the only things they can actually be fired for. The solution…

I was recruited by, and damn near did a tour with USDS. I ended up passing on it. They wanted an "entrepreneur in residence" to help drive change, which sounded great to me. Then they did the whole "we need you to keep in a cup" thing. I wouldn't have had any problem passing the test, but I told the recruiter "this is where the change needs to start". There's no way I can attract and retain good technical talent if w…

[flagged]

Re: AI.gov

#138

Post by userabchn »

layer8 wrote: post #110
paulddraper wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> America's global brain drain might have been the single most effective strategy that the planet has seen so far... > The only question is if the rest of the world is going to wake up and counter this. Probably not. Simply put, there's no first-world country in the world where top talent can earn even close to a US salary, which largely due to the fact that US is relatively permissive towards large income disparitie…

At the same time, moving to the US is unattractive for a significant portion of the talent (not the least due to the US’ socio-cultural-political climate), and working remotely for a US company comes with its own difficulties.

I suggest that a substantial portion of that "socio-cultural-political climate" is due to foreign influence operations trying to amplify division for this purpose.

Re: AI.gov

#139

Post by usaar333 »

davisr wrote: post #118
jjcm wrote: post #94

The Presidential Innovation Fellow is the highest level role they're offering as part of this. For this, the requirements are "mid-senior/executive career professional experience in a subject matter expertise" with "experience collaborating with and leading cross-functional teams". The requirements feel analogous to a staff/principal level role in the software industry, so just for comparison here's the compensation…

Why did you assume that everyone is motivated by money? After $100k, what difference does it make for one's happiness? Personally, I wouldn't want such a shallow individual working in my government.

> After $100k, what difference does it make for one's happiness?

Probably a lot. Can't raise a family in the Silicon Valley on that which makes people unhappy.

This is far more of a cut than say at CZI.

Re: AI.gov

#140

Post by ToucanLoucan »

claytongulick wrote: post #120
aduffy wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Recoding America[1] is an excellent book about this problem, but it extends a lot further than just contractors charging inflated rates. The government itself has a culture that is so averse to trying new things and compliance with existing policy that it's actually dangerous to the careers of civil servants to do anything innovative, because that is one of the only things they can actually be fired for. The solution…

I was recruited by, and damn near did a tour with USDS. I ended up passing on it. They wanted an "entrepreneur in residence" to help drive change, which sounded great to me. Then they did the whole "we need you to keep in a cup" thing. I wouldn't have had any problem passing the test, but I told the recruiter "this is where the change needs to start". There's no way I can attract and retain good technical talent if w…

I mean no offense, but this is sort of, with regard to your principles at least, cutting off one's nose to spite one's face? I get that incremental reform is frustrating, but here you had a chance to enter an org you know needed changes, and you blew it because you refused to take a basic drug test that you openly state you could've passed easily.

Like, it's bullshit that they asked, it is an invasion of privacy, it shouldn't be a reason to forgo employment of a candidate they otherwise liked, but at the same time, it wasn't an issue of like, you wouldn't get hired because of your race or gender, it was an issue of like, you'd have to abstain drugs for a while. And then, once you're part of that organization, you can help push for the exact changes you want to see in it.

It's the same reason I get frustrated with my generation not wanting to run for office: we spend all our time complaining about how awful the government is, but precious few are putting themselves out there as the instruments of that change. I don't know if it'll work out or not but I know damn well it won't if we refuse to even try.

Post reply on HN