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

251–260 of 266 posts

Re: AI.gov

#251

Post by bumby »

aduffy wrote: post #25
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…

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…

>it's actually dangerous to the careers of civil servants to do anything innovative

As a general rule, this is probably true. But there are certainly roles where people are encourage to innovate. Remember, the government is huuuge. If you get a job in a legitimate research lab, you are not only encouraged, but expected to innovate. I'd be careful we're not conflating something like an operations role with that of a research role. (Although, to your point, there is some value in ops people innovating, too).

Re: AI.gov

#252

Post by bumby »

ToucanLoucan wrote: post #140
claytongulick wrote: post #120

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

I'll add, from their perspective, it may also have security risk associated with it. If you are applying for a federal job, there may be a chance that you deal with sensitive information. Just like I may think it's bullshit if they ask how much debt I'm carrying, I understand it from the standpoint that it may impact my security risk.

Re: AI.gov

#253

Post by bumby »

j45 wrote: post #188
fkyoureadthedoc wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Did you just strip the context and rephrase exactly what the parent comment says?

Not at all. Sincerely asking, does your question intend to pre-suppose that everyone must have and express a unique perspective and no one can independently have anything in common? Or some other faux pas such a comment would run a-foul of? When I saw original post, I had this comment. There was kinship with the parent post. Sometimes echoing your support with another comment is a valid comment too. If you may want m…

>that was my visceral reaction to the piece

Comments here are supposed to be substantive and thoughtful, not knee-jerk and visceral.

Re: AI.gov

#254

Post by bumby »

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…

This is probably an unpopular opinion in tech circles, but perhaps the goal of top tech talent shouldn't always be centered on amassing the most money?

I get that the pay scales don't hold a candle to private industry, but they aren't pauper wages either. They're in the top 10% of the US as a whole. I suspect if that isn't sufficient, it might indicate a difference in value systems.

Re: AI.gov

#255

Post by JCharante »

junofan wrote: post #117
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…

Yeah but your country needs you, and that’s actually pretty good pay. I think tech would be a little bit broader if more people considered serving for a year or two.

Countries are like a streaming service. Shop around to see which you like most and subscribe to it in the form of paying taxes. If a country has brain drain then that’s their fault for being incapable of providing a good life to their citizens and inherently should not exist as it means they’re doing their citizens a disservice by providing a worse quality of life.

Re: AI.gov

#256

Post by JCharante »

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.

100k is very little.. I’d want my government workers to have enough disposable income to frequently travel abroad and experience different ways of life.

Re: AI.gov

#257

Post by janeerie »

sngz wrote: post #185
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 actually considered applying for the US Digital Services, I was okay with the salary decrease as long as I could continue to work fully remote, but they require you to work in DC. Telling ppl to take a huge pay cut AND to have to show up to the office is a huge ask.

I interviewed with them yesterday, and they hire fully remote also.

Re: AI.gov

#258

Post by janeerie »

philsnow wrote: post #211
sngz wrote: post #185

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I actually considered applying for the US Digital Services, I was okay with the salary decrease as long as I could continue to work fully remote, but they require you to work in DC. Telling ppl to take a huge pay cut AND to have to show up to the office is a huge ask.

from https://www.usds.gov/faq : > As of April 2023, we began formally hiring remote as well as DC (local) based employees who report in-person to our D.C. office or the agency they are partnering with. I'm also fine with the salary decrease but at least with USDS they have you work a "tour" (like a tour of duty, I guess) which lasts between 3 months and 4 years. First, that's a little ambiguous; who decides the durat…

It was explained to me that they have to do the "tour" model (which is a minimum of 1 year, up to 4 years) because it is the only way they can bypass the usual lengthy government hiring process.

Re: AI.gov

#259

Post by Dylan16807 »

rs999gti wrote: post #248
Dylan16807 wrote: post #242

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's a matter for law enforcement, not your employer.

OP of comment says they were applying for a federal job. So federal rules apply.

Not everything that is "federal" is the same.

Hiring policies and legality are different matters.

If there is a hiring policy against it, then that hiring policy is paternalistic and demeaning and shouldn't exist.

If it's illegal, that's not the responsibility of the people hiring you.

The people in charge of hiring should not be trying to enforce laws outside of the workplace.

Re: AI.gov

#260

Post by aduffy »

bumby wrote: post #251
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…

> it's actually dangerous to the careers of civil servants to do anything innovative As a general rule, this is probably true. But there are certainly roles where people are encourage to innovate. Remember, the government is huuuge. If you get a job in a legitimate research lab, you are not only encouraged, but expected to innovate. I'd be careful we're not conflating something like an operations role with that of a…

Yes I meant people in government who are responsible for spending money and overseeing programs. NASA and NIH scientists and DARPA PMs are amazing innovators that should be celebrated. All of these people are responsible for an incredibly small piece of government spending.
Post reply on HN