6 ms·

- This really isn't representative of the ML job market because the author is such an outlier. - The fact that it isn't representative is what makes the articl

by jstx1 5y ago

- This really isn't representative of the ML job market because the author is such an outlier. - The fact that it isn't representative is what makes the article an interesting read. - The fact that they claim to have a plan for solving AGI in 20 years really detracts from their credibility.

shepardrtc 5y ago
> - The fact that they claim to have a plan for solving AGI in 20 years really detracts from their credibility. I see they're going the cold fusion route.
hervature 5y ago
As someone who is in a somewhat similar position as the author (looking for senior ML roles), I found this part enjoyable: > I’m not like one of those kids that gets into all the Ivy League schools at once and gets to pick whatever they want. Followed by "FAANG + similar" and a deluge of options. Also, I feel like their message is pretty liberal with using future projections and implying it to be the present. For instance, the author has 6 years of experience with 2 at the senior level. This is pretty far from "staff level" (at 1M+ compensation, I think this is L8) which they imply is/was an option at a FAANG company. I don't doubt that in 5 years they would be at that level, but they almost certainly did not get offered a "staff" position at a FAANG.
- jstx1 5y ago
  It's ambitious bordering on delusional. They're also doing the dirty trick of putting "2016 - 2022 Senior Research Scientist at Robotics at Google" on their resume even though they've been in the senior position only since 2020. Like, dude, you're doing great, your resume doesn't need any more artificial pumping up. Or I guess it does if you're aiming for those positions that are kind of out of reach.
  - colonelxc 5y ago
    I don't think that is unusual to list the latest level on a resume. I'm certainly not going to dedicate space on a resume to list time ranges for every promotion.
    - jstx1 5y ago
      So if this person had been promoted to staff level in 2022, they could have changed their resume to "Staff Research Scientist, 2016-present" and that would be okay with you? Because it seems deliberately misleading to me. It's different if the level isn't represented in the title - if they went from one band to another but the title was the same, I don't see a problem with putting down something like "Software Engineer, 2016-present" without wasting space on each promotion.
      - colonelxc 5y ago
        In general, yes, I think that would be okay. I think it would be a mistake to create separate sections for each level. Overall your achievements within a single company should not be organized chronologically, but by what you want to show off. This may still be mostly chronological as you take on more responsibility/leadership. Now, I don't object to adding a line like: "promoted twice from Software Engineer 2 to Staff Software Engineer" or whatever, which I think is a good middle ground (and I would put this as the very last, least important entry for that company)
        uoaei 5y ago
        But it undeniably misleads the reader into thinking this person has held senior responsibilities since 2016, which is outright false, and may instill in the reader more confidence than is due.
        pbronez 5y ago
        As a hiring manager, I don't assume that. When there's a single title over a long range of time, I assume it's a terminal title. I look to the details for the position to see what kinds of work they've done. In the interview, I'll dig into trajectory and experience at various levels.
  - kyawzazaw 5y ago
    It's clear on his LinkedIn. It's not unusual to to list the latest on a resume.
- cletus 5y ago
  These outliers are rare but they do exist. I knew someone at Google who was hired as L3 straight out of college (as all non-PhDs are) and got promoted once a year to L6 (Staff) so 3 years. He got promoted to L7 2 years after that. It's a rare combination of talent and the right circumstances but it does happen.
  - hervature 5y ago
    I tried to hint at this by using quotes, I don't doubt that L6 is possible. But, please elucidate, are there L6s at Google making "low 7 figures"? From levels.fyi, there are no such reports. The average is about half and matches what I know from other companies. Those that are approaching 7 figures have at least a decade of experience. Anyway, the pay he describes is much closer to L8.
    - deep_etcetera 5y ago
      You can see some examples here https://aipaygrad.es/ https://aipaygrad.es/
      - deleted 5y ago
        [deleted]
    - deleted 5y ago
      [deleted]
    - cletus 5y ago
      The only way L6s are making "low 7 figures" is because of large movements in the share price after they were given grants. Low 7 figures is realistic for L8s without the share price noticeably appreciating. With discretionary grants some L7s may squeak into that club. But L6? No way.
    - kyawzazaw 5y ago
      Are those SWE paybands or a Research Scientist pay band? That might matter.
- toddm 5y ago
  Ironically, he graduated from Brown University, an Ivy League school.
  - ZephyrBlu 5y ago
    And he worked in one of the most exclusive teams, Google Brain.
    - toddm 5y ago
      Kids who graduate from Ivy League schools get a lot of job offers at once and get to pick whatever they want.
      - mediumiqsad 5y ago
- titanomachy 5y ago
  FAANG staff in 5-6 years out of school is not impossible. I know a couple. They are significant outliers in terms of focus, dedication (i.e. hours worked), and raw intelligence. If I had to guess, I'd say 1 in 30 from the population of Google-level engineers.
  - krat0sprakhar 5y ago
    > They are significant outliers in terms of focus, dedication (i.e. hours worked), and raw intelligence. As someone who has worked at FAANG for 5 years right out of school, getting to staff is less about raw intelligence and more about being lucky with working on projects that did not get canned and finding supportive managers. My friends much smarter than me have not had a good growth purely because they were unlucky with initial team assignment and PA / reorgs cancelling their projects.
    - davnn 5y ago
      Is there a large org where commitment/getting things done is more important/valued than social skills/network/luck? I.e. is there a fair model to measure an individual‘s contribution?
    - titanomachy 5y ago
      That is true, but one "young staff" I know was initially assigned to a dead-end project. She made it her life's mission to find something more interesting and promotable, and succeeded. But there's definitely luck involved.
redredrobot 5y ago
There are some groups defining AGI in a way where a 20 year timeline is aggressive but not impossible. The real question is how is AGI being defined by the author.
evrydayhustling 5y ago
On the plus side, the article accidentally produces the most useful definition I've seen of AGI. If you just define AGI as the the union and convergence of all hard problems, then you can just say "I'm working on AGI" to let people know you're doing the smartest, hardest thing, without sweating any details.
queuebert 5y ago
The problem with AGI is that it is people like this who are developing it.

by jstx1 5y ago

shepardrtc 5y ago

> - The fact that they claim to have a plan for solving AGI in 20 years really detracts from their credibility. I see they're going the cold fusion route.

hervature 5y ago

As someone who is in a somewhat similar position as the author (looking for senior ML roles), I found this part enjoyable: > I’m not like one of those kids that gets into all the Ivy League schools at once and gets to pick whatever they want. Followed by "FAANG + similar" and a deluge of options. Also, I feel like their message is pretty liberal with using future projections and implying it to be the present. For instance, the author has 6 years of experience with 2 at the senior level. This is pretty far from "staff level" (at 1M+ compensation, I think this is L8) which they imply is/was an option at a FAANG company. I don't doubt that in 5 years they would be at that level, but they almost certainly did not get offered a "staff" position at a FAANG.

jstx1 5y ago
It's ambitious bordering on delusional. They're also doing the dirty trick of putting "2016 - 2022 Senior Research Scientist at Robotics at Google" on their resume even though they've been in the senior position only since 2020. Like, dude, you're doing great, your resume doesn't need any more artificial pumping up. Or I guess it does if you're aiming for those positions that are kind of out of reach.
- colonelxc 5y ago
  I don't think that is unusual to list the latest level on a resume. I'm certainly not going to dedicate space on a resume to list time ranges for every promotion.
  - jstx1 5y ago
    So if this person had been promoted to staff level in 2022, they could have changed their resume to "Staff Research Scientist, 2016-present" and that would be okay with you? Because it seems deliberately misleading to me. It's different if the level isn't represented in the title - if they went from one band to another but the title was the same, I don't see a problem with putting down something like "Software Engineer, 2016-present" without wasting space on each promotion.
    - colonelxc 5y ago
      In general, yes, I think that would be okay. I think it would be a mistake to create separate sections for each level. Overall your achievements within a single company should not be organized chronologically, but by what you want to show off. This may still be mostly chronological as you take on more responsibility/leadership. Now, I don't object to adding a line like: "promoted twice from Software Engineer 2 to Staff Software Engineer" or whatever, which I think is a good middle ground (and I would put this as the very last, least important entry for that company)
      - uoaei 5y ago
        But it undeniably misleads the reader into thinking this person has held senior responsibilities since 2016, which is outright false, and may instill in the reader more confidence than is due.
        pbronez 5y ago
        As a hiring manager, I don't assume that. When there's a single title over a long range of time, I assume it's a terminal title. I look to the details for the position to see what kinds of work they've done. In the interview, I'll dig into trajectory and experience at various levels.
- kyawzazaw 5y ago
  It's clear on his LinkedIn. It's not unusual to to list the latest on a resume.
cletus 5y ago
These outliers are rare but they do exist. I knew someone at Google who was hired as L3 straight out of college (as all non-PhDs are) and got promoted once a year to L6 (Staff) so 3 years. He got promoted to L7 2 years after that. It's a rare combination of talent and the right circumstances but it does happen.
- hervature 5y ago
  I tried to hint at this by using quotes, I don't doubt that L6 is possible. But, please elucidate, are there L6s at Google making "low 7 figures"? From levels.fyi, there are no such reports. The average is about half and matches what I know from other companies. Those that are approaching 7 figures have at least a decade of experience. Anyway, the pay he describes is much closer to L8.
  - deep_etcetera 5y ago
    You can see some examples here https://aipaygrad.es/ https://aipaygrad.es/
    - deleted 5y ago
      [deleted]
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
  - cletus 5y ago
    The only way L6s are making "low 7 figures" is because of large movements in the share price after they were given grants. Low 7 figures is realistic for L8s without the share price noticeably appreciating. With discretionary grants some L7s may squeak into that club. But L6? No way.
  - kyawzazaw 5y ago
    Are those SWE paybands or a Research Scientist pay band? That might matter.
toddm 5y ago
Ironically, he graduated from Brown University, an Ivy League school.
- ZephyrBlu 5y ago
  And he worked in one of the most exclusive teams, Google Brain.
  - toddm 5y ago
    Kids who graduate from Ivy League schools get a lot of job offers at once and get to pick whatever they want.
    - mediumiqsad 5y ago
titanomachy 5y ago
FAANG staff in 5-6 years out of school is not impossible. I know a couple. They are significant outliers in terms of focus, dedication (i.e. hours worked), and raw intelligence. If I had to guess, I'd say 1 in 30 from the population of Google-level engineers.
- krat0sprakhar 5y ago
  > They are significant outliers in terms of focus, dedication (i.e. hours worked), and raw intelligence. As someone who has worked at FAANG for 5 years right out of school, getting to staff is less about raw intelligence and more about being lucky with working on projects that did not get canned and finding supportive managers. My friends much smarter than me have not had a good growth purely because they were unlucky with initial team assignment and PA / reorgs cancelling their projects.
  - davnn 5y ago
    Is there a large org where commitment/getting things done is more important/valued than social skills/network/luck? I.e. is there a fair model to measure an individual‘s contribution?
  - titanomachy 5y ago
    That is true, but one "young staff" I know was initially assigned to a dead-end project. She made it her life's mission to find something more interesting and promotable, and succeeded. But there's definitely luck involved.

redredrobot 5y ago

There are some groups defining AGI in a way where a 20 year timeline is aggressive but not impossible. The real question is how is AGI being defined by the author.

evrydayhustling 5y ago

On the plus side, the article accidentally produces the most useful definition I've seen of AGI. If you just define AGI as the the union and convergence of all hard problems, then you can just say "I'm working on AGI" to let people know you're doing the smartest, hardest thing, without sweating any details.

queuebert 5y ago

The problem with AGI is that it is people like this who are developing it.