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

261–266 of 266 posts

Re: AI.gov

#261

Post by bumby »

aduffy wrote: post #260
bumby wrote: post #251

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

Surprisingly, a relatively large amount of NASA work is done contractors. Civil servants are often relegated to support and administrative roles.

Re: AI.gov

#262

Post by Frost1x »

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…

As someone who has worked at such research labs I disagree. Innovation is encouraged, sure, but the research funding model, agencies, and most research labs create environments that push work on small iterative efforts and system gaming.

We as a society have stopped making sure our folks have overall stability in their jobs and as such, maintaining stable income for most is a priority. We don't accept failure, we don't proportionately reward risk taking (and instead, promote risk passing/mitigating), and were increasingly forgetting that regular failure is part of life. As such, even "innovative" labs are increasingly becoming less innovative, IMHO.

Where you see innovation happening is where there's typically piles of capital that provide people the stability and environments to take risks and fail, combined of course with luck or foresight in choosing the correct paths forward. That or in places where people sacrifice aspects of their own life to move something forward through some passion, obsession, etc. which is not a market of people I want to compete with.

Re: AI.gov

#263

Post by Frost1x »

bumby wrote: post #254
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.

We've abstracted so much in life as a transactional situation through which our system of exchange, money, holds power to do so much. It shouldn't be surprising that the some of most useful resources to accomplish tasks in life or even necessary to survive are so sought after.

If we adjust the incentives of life a bit so people aren't constantly looking for another buck to make sure they can actually retire or pay their mortgage off, assure they have access to healthcare when they inevitably get sick, and so on we might find a lot more people would invest their time towards other contributions in society rather than those that they find that compensate them the most.

Re: AI.gov

#264

Post by bumby »

Frost1x wrote: post #263
bumby wrote: post #254

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

We've abstracted so much in life as a transactional situation through which our system of exchange, money, holds power to do so much. It shouldn't be surprising that the some of most useful resources to accomplish tasks in life or even necessary to survive are so sought after. If we adjust the incentives of life a bit so people aren't constantly looking for another buck to make sure they can actually retire or pay th…

I agree that the transactional mindset is part of the problem. The irony is that the research seems to imply that an awful lot of our happiness can be improved from taking a different mindset.

Re: AI.gov

#265

Post by sngz »

janeerie wrote: post #258
philsnow wrote: post #211

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

so what happens at the end of the tour? you get interviewed again? or are you barred from rejoining unless you do the lengthy government hiring process?

Re: AI.gov

#266

Post by sngz »

janeerie wrote: post #257
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.

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

yeah I just learned from the other comment they changed this. But the tour model is another trade off they are asking for now.
Post reply on HN