3 ms·

This is kind of what I figured. I get the distinct feeling that any startup that is unable to keep pace (or break new ground) with AI research & development is

This is kind of what I figured. I get the distinct feeling that any startup that is unable to keep pace (or break new ground) with AI research & development is going to be hurting badly within the next five years. Uber is poaching AI and Robotics talent, read:profs, from Carnegie Mellon for a reason. It is a do-or-die situation it seems.

RcouF1uZ4gsC 9y ago
Great comment. As a nit, I think "poaching" is a bad term. Uber offered to pay these professors what it viewed as what they were worth to it, which happened to be a lot more than what CMU was paying them. The professors accepted of their own free choice. I fail to see why such an action is termed "poaching". We have had enough problems with industry illegally conspiring (see Steve Jobs) to suppress developer pay through "anti-poaching" agreements, that the term "poaching" is long due for retirement in describing situations other than when animals are illegally killed.
- taneq 9y ago
  > I fail to see why such an action is termed "poaching". Because the company is a king, and the employees are the property of the crown?
- altotrees 9y ago
  Hey there, thanks for the nit. I am kind of a language nerd, so always appreciate a bit of analysis. I see your point "poaching" as a word has had a somewhat problematic historical context attached to it. I guess I used the term relating to it's sub-definition "take or acquire in an unfair or clandestine way." I found the migration of experts from CMU to Uber fascinating — for two reasons: 1. The geographical proximity in which the acquisition occurred (i.e. a rust belt town with an awesome CS school and a well known Silicon Valley startup on location). 2. The moving from the academy to the private sector of said professors/researchers happened in a way I hadn't seen before. I mean lots of academics work within industry at some point, but this move seemed to carry more weight in the media — maybe because of the institution involved. Anyway, with that said, lots of the articles and speculation I read about it, for better or worse, painted the acquisition of academics by Uber as a bit unfair. I.e. Uber could and did pay way more than CMU and provided super interesting problems maybe outside the realm of what a professor normally faces in their research, I don't know. It was the "unfair" element portrayed in articles/opinion pieces I based my wording off of. I am in no way suggesting these profs and researchers did anything wrong or did anything but make the right choice for themselves, something we all have to do. I digress. Word choice noted, problematic history and other associations noted and hopefully I cleared up my choice a bit.

RcouF1uZ4gsC 9y ago

Great comment. As a nit, I think "poaching" is a bad term. Uber offered to pay these professors what it viewed as what they were worth to it, which happened to be a lot more than what CMU was paying them. The professors accepted of their own free choice. I fail to see why such an action is termed "poaching". We have had enough problems with industry illegally conspiring (see Steve Jobs) to suppress developer pay through "anti-poaching" agreements, that the term "poaching" is long due for retirement in describing situations other than when animals are illegally killed.

taneq 9y ago
> I fail to see why such an action is termed "poaching". Because the company is a king, and the employees are the property of the crown?
altotrees 9y ago
Hey there, thanks for the nit. I am kind of a language nerd, so always appreciate a bit of analysis. I see your point "poaching" as a word has had a somewhat problematic historical context attached to it. I guess I used the term relating to it's sub-definition "take or acquire in an unfair or clandestine way." I found the migration of experts from CMU to Uber fascinating — for two reasons: 1. The geographical proximity in which the acquisition occurred (i.e. a rust belt town with an awesome CS school and a well known Silicon Valley startup on location). 2. The moving from the academy to the private sector of said professors/researchers happened in a way I hadn't seen before. I mean lots of academics work within industry at some point, but this move seemed to carry more weight in the media — maybe because of the institution involved. Anyway, with that said, lots of the articles and speculation I read about it, for better or worse, painted the acquisition of academics by Uber as a bit unfair. I.e. Uber could and did pay way more than CMU and provided super interesting problems maybe outside the realm of what a professor normally faces in their research, I don't know. It was the "unfair" element portrayed in articles/opinion pieces I based my wording off of. I am in no way suggesting these profs and researchers did anything wrong or did anything but make the right choice for themselves, something we all have to do. I digress. Word choice noted, problematic history and other associations noted and hopefully I cleared up my choice a bit.