Well, sure, but this is a problem nearly as old as Go itself. I thought they were referring to larger more recent things, like how generics work, or something to that effect.
>Winning the AI race is about marketing at this point - the difference between the models is negligible.
Meta is paying Anthropic to give its devs access to Claude because it's that much better than their internal models. You think that's a marketing problem?
It’s wild to me that Alexandr Wang gets to make these decisions, unless I’m mistaken, ScaleAI isn’t exactly a major software company, it outsources “manual” labeling. Does this guy have any experience running large scale software projects?
I think google is an excellent place to work, but the top AI companies do poach some of our good employees. If you're the cream of the crop, sure, take the Anthropic offer over G. But I do appreciate the massive amount of freedom to work on hard problems.
Google can be an excellent place to work, but most of the people working there are not contributing to the company’s profits. Whether or not you think that still has value, leadership is trying to “optimize” by squeezing everyone harder and demanding they show productivity gains using AI. Some teams will adapt and keep being a nice team to work on, but many employees are getting “optimized” out of the company and replaced with vendorization and consultants.
I know some people who are fine working there. No one seems thrilled but if you're an above average engineer who is just getting by at 140k a year and suddenly you're looking at 350k a year as an SDEIII or something, that can be a life changing amount of money.
However, I think the question is, what percentage of engineers can pass the amazon interview but not the Apple/Databricks/Uber/Google/Meta ones. Because no one is picking amazon over the aforementioned companies.
However, maybe there's an opening at Amazon and not the other companies, or maybe that's your only offer. I certainly think it might be worth it for a a few years.
It can be a life changing amount of money but not always in a good way. If you're not careful, your spending expands like a gas to fill all the available volume and you're just marching sideways towards retirement with nothing saved because it's too fun spending money.
RSUs actually help mitigate this a bit, because you're not going to qualify for a giant house/apartment with your RSU money, and most places aren't even vesting monthly so you're more likely to treat them like bonuses, rather than inflate lifestyle.
Not saying it doesn't happen, but it's probably harder than if it was just suddenly getting a giant salary.
Assuming they’re already living in Seattle: pre tax, and supporting a family? According to a quick google, that’s ~$100k after tax, a 3BR in Seattle is ~$4k/mo so you’re left with $52k for everything else, in a HCOL area. I buy it.
Homelessness + loans (credit cards) are on the rise and births are on the decrease.
But to honestly answer the question, by either not living in large cities and commuting in, sharing those 3BRs, or staying home with parents. Shaving that 48k/year (post-tax) rent down to ~12k/year frees up a lot of money.
(Also if you're young, staying with your parents and saving ~100-200k in rent for a downpayment over 10 years just seems like a smart idea to me).
For the first ten years of my career, I just assumed my resume would get passed over, that even though I was smart and capable, there was no point in trying to work at top tier places.
I was single and not a lavish spender so I didn't feel external pressure to try all that hard beyond having a low six figures job.
There are plenty of low prestige, mismanaged small companies that will pay low six figures and overwork people.
AWS is not winning selling compute to AI folks. GCP and Azure have both done better selling AI services, which is part of the problem. Amazon is still the king for basic compute, but fell behind on the AI infra.
reply