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

201–210 of 266 posts

Re: AI.gov

#201

Post by rlayton2 »

boringg wrote: post #199
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…

Working for the government should be in the same ballpark but typically work at the government pays a less as there is to be the perceived benefit of social good imbedded in your salary as well as there are power considerations (in this case impacting AI policy). That and your job is generally considered to be safer than working in private interest. The incentives aren't the same. For example judges take on their rol…

I'm not sure about the USA, but government jobs in Australia also are very stable with strong contracts and benefits (in general, every department is different).

Re: AI.gov

#202

Post by mananaysiempre »

nonrandomstring wrote: post #115
KineticLensman wrote: post #101

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> that approximates the British civil service, which is actually highly functional and effective Not when it procuring large systems, IT or otherwise. As routinely discussed and complained about by the National Audit Office (NAO) [0]. The civil service relies massively on external consultants and contractors to achieve anything. [0] https://www.nao.org.uk/

Sadly our track record on IT is disgraceful, yes. Billion pound IT black holes are strewn across health, education, defence.... It's a legacy of cronyism and corruption from the incumbent Tory "government". Consider Sunak's connections. OTOH our Civil Service remains a beacon of competence in a sea of insane policies, reshuffles, resignations, criminal scandals and total absenteeism. It runs on "values", plus a bit o…

Yet somehow the same institutions produced gov.uk, which is superb compared to just about every other country’s counterpart. I’ve no idea how you did it, just wanted my appreciation on the record :)

Re: AI.gov

#205

Post by phillipcarter »

asynchronous wrote: post #180
phillipcarter wrote: post #131

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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'…

I personally don’t enjoy the government enforcing monopolies and moats for the FAANGs of the world.

What specifically in the order do you disagree with?

Re: AI.gov

#206

Post by rs999gti »

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…

> Plus, I find the whole "pee in a cup" thing demeaning, intrusive and offensive.

Marijuana is still US federally illegal.

Re: AI.gov

#207

Post by dbish »

ibejoeb wrote: post #106
dbish wrote: post #102

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That’s not going to get good people unless they’re doing it to help.

With no intention to start a flame war: I don't see a future where affording a government the capability of SOTA AI is helping.

Fair point, just saying they definitely won’t get people who can help with or understand SOTA at these prices unless they’re basically volunteering.

Re: AI.gov

#208

Post by ajcp »

aiisjustanif wrote: post #193
ajcp wrote: post #175

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Actually quite the opposite: they're specifically targeting people with FAANG and/or Ivy League pedigrees. The government can't afford these people straight up, so they slap "Presidential" or "White House" on a fellowship to make it more attractive. And it is; a Presidential or White House fellowship is as much a resume maker as working at a FAANG or an Ivy League degree.

How come? I would value a Stanford degree and working at Google on a resume. I wouldn’t know what to think about The White House or Air Force (like many posting on their site) on a resume.

It's specifically the Presidential or White House [0] fellowships that are prestigious, although if you have any job in the White House that's just as well.

What value an employer would derive from seeing that on someone's resume is probably the same as with Google or Stanford: it shows they got in, with the known/assumed quality of the institution vouching for their capability.

0. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_House_Fellows

Re: AI.gov

#209

Post by adeelk93 »

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…

Two things:

- your 18 year figure is inaccurate, I know people who have made it to the top of the pay scale in half that time

- GS-15 step 10 is not the cap for a role like this one. this is scientific/technical expertise, which is 20% higher ($220,200). Not to mention awards.

https://www.opm.gov/policy-data-oversight/senior-executive-s...

Post reply on HN