3 ms·
Genuine questions for those participating in this market (on either side): -How is the performance of $1M AI researchers measured? Like, at their six month rev
by tedsanders 9y ago
Genuine questions for those participating in this market (on either side):
-How is the performance of $1M AI researchers measured? Like, at their six month review, what do you look at to tell if your money is being well spent?
-How do you tell if it makes more sense to hire 1 famous AI researcher vs 10 additional junior data scientists? What sort of products are suited to different hiring strategies?
-How much of $1M AI researcher hiring is long-term/speculative (i.e., based on hopes of future products/revenue) vs short-term/measurable (immediately measurable as soon as a code commit hits the product)? Are there examples of products where profit went up by millions after a famous AI researcher was hired?
It sounds like quite a few companies are grappling with these questions today. I'm really curious to know how their thinking is evolving on this topic.
- chatmasta 9y agoIt seems more akin to building a labor war chest, i.e. filling your company with the best AI talent so that your competition can not hire them. You might not have an exact plan for what to do now, but there's no reason not to build up a talented team of engineers in a hot field when you've got effectively unlimited money and resources.
- bob_theslob646 9y agoHuh, you seem to be describing Google fairly well...
- nl 9y agoThere is no shortage of big problems for AI researchers to work on. If I had the money I'd hire hundreds, and that's just on my subfield (A.I. for software development).
- CretinDesAlpes 9y agoI don't think it works like this. It's a strategic investment for the company to attract talents. People want to work with smarter people than themselves. Like they say in the article “When you hire a star, you are not just hiring a star, You are hiring everyone they attract. And you are paying for all the publicity they will attract.”