4 ms·

> If Geico was opening a new machine learning division to do some really interesting work on the probably shitload of actuarial data they've built over the year

> If Geico was opening a new machine learning division to do some really interesting work on the probably shitload of actuarial data they've built over the years, maybe someone from anthropic would be interested in that But they’re not. And they won’t. And that is my point. They’d make a ML Engineer post on LinkedIn and get a bunch of people for whom Geico would be a step up. There will never be a job opening from Geico that someone at Anthropic would apply to. That’s my point - your pool will always be people who are in a worse position than your job. Being laid off is a worse position than a job. You’ll never see Anthropic candidates in a Geico hiring pool, unless they were laid off for being lousy and can’t find anything else. The market is pretty efficient - people wouldn’t bid for jobs that are worse than their current situation.

komali2 8mo ago
> The market is pretty efficient - people wouldn’t bid for jobs that are worse than their current situation. This still seems like an oversimplification. It's easy to label FAANG, "frontier AI companies," whatever else, but the vast majority of jobs and the vast majority of engineers are in a soup that's maybe able to be split between "startup world" and "enterprise world" but beyond that, difficult to say one is "worse" or "better." And I've worked alongside FAANG people in startup world so, either that isn't a "worse" job and therefore your theory doesn't work because that means it's not really possible to accurately evaluate every single company as objectively worse/better, or, your theory doesn't work because people do apply to "worse" jobs.