Hacker News Reader

Comment by wufufufu | Hacker News Reader

I suspect that calculus, statistics, and linear algebra are required for most 4-year CS degrees. Some schools even have an "AI" track for their undergrad degrees. This article specifically refers to PhDs in Machine Learning, which is much higher bar.

If you do research in the same area that Google's research department is throughout your graduate degree, net research internships at insert fancy company with AI component here every summer, and get a PhD, $300k seems completely reasonable.

Personally, I think we're in a SaaS bubble and an AI bubble. "AI" isn't nearly as developed or useful as the amount of VC money being dumped into it.

View on HN

You could also just become a plumber and probably make $300k a year[i] (~150$/hour). Engineers are incredibly undervalued for all the effort they put in their education (and containing education). A plumber could pull in at least $150 per hour in the bay area. I just hate the headlines Sky-High which in the rest of the professions is normal. Try finding an (below average english major) attorney at $150 per hour.

[i] https://www.homeadvisor.com/cost/plumbing/

This is, like the comment of varelse, also a bit of an oversimplification.

To earn that kind of money as a plumber you would need to either work your way up over the course of roughly 15 to 20 years at a very generous plumbing company, or be an independent plumber with next level marketing skills.

The average plumber, pipe or steamfitter just coming out of their training is not going to get anywhere near 300 000 a year.

Yes this is the top end. Like what we are talking about with engineers here: AI Talent.

When you say talent you mean Tensorflow monkeys?

In my case, I turned a career in driver and low-level algorithm coding into a career in AI in <2 years emphasizing the ability to implement AI algorithms in C/C++ and CUDA. That said, when Tensorflow Monkeys can make $300K right out of school, imagine how someone who could bang the metal directly could do...

TLDR: Chance favored the prepared skill set. No fancy degree required, just results.

PS Before that, I blew a boring blind-allocated gig at Google insisting that GPUs were about to play a huge role there a year before they acquired DNNResearch. I even tried to join the very beginnings of the Google Brain team but they didn't have any openings or the budget/willingness to make one for me.

With no evidence whatsoever, I would argue against that. "Top talent" does not equate to "moving into an industry with potential". I think the other comment re TensorMonkeys is valid. How many AI researchers actually understand the ins and out of what they do or the tools they use? Seems to me that AI is/will become abstraction on abstraction etc as AI gets more complex and that means the people using the tech are more and more removed from "first principles", and therefore need to know less and therefore not really "top talent" in my book. Maybe at the start though.

The top end of engineers and researchers in artificial intelligence earn magnificent salaries. That domain is not, itself, the top end of software engineering, it's a specialization of it with its own salary track. You aren't actually comparing like for like here, because most engineers doing work in "artificial intelligence" aren't even pulling down the salary you noted for the top end of plumbing (which is itself wildly unrealistic).

Plumbers make closer to 40k a year. Some tiny pcnt of them will get as high as the low hundreds, not as plumbers but as owners of successful plumbing companies. But the top tiny pcnt of software people who move into ownership and succeed become... stupid rich. if you compare apples to apples, the wealthy plumber fantasy fades quick.

Haha. $20/hr plumbers hilarious. I am sure you can't, but please provide a link to this source.

https://www.payscale.com/research/US/Job=Plumber/Hourly_Rate

https://money.usnews.com/careers/best-jobs/plumber/salary

When the data disagrees with your mental model, consider re-evaluating your mental model.

The amount a client pays per hour for labor != the takehome pay of the person whose time you're ostensibly being charged for.

*Thanks for the link. So my last plumbing job should have been $10!!! (Not 290$!!).

That's not how labor-intensive businesses work. Again, The amount a client pays per hour for labor != the takehome pay of the person whose time you're ostensibly being charged for.

Revenue is not profit, and "price per hour for labor" != "hourly rate I pay my laborers". This is even true in owner-operator businesses. Furthermore, in bursty markets, "annual income amortized over career" != "my hourly rate multiplied by 40-60 multiplied by the number of weeks I want to work".

The numbers from my links are INCOME, not "what the business charged the client".

My plumber charges me $80/hr in the bay area. Now that's ~50% above the poverty line, but it's >2x the median wage around me.

If only every employee received {total revenue generated by company}/{# of employees in company}.

:-)

Well, either he's pocketing a large fraction of that or he's up to his eyeballs in debt looking at his new boat and his fancy new truck. Methinks you're overanalyzing it.

To the contrary. We have actual data that directly answers the question "what is the typical take-home pay of plumbers". You just have to look at the damn table.

Why keep insisting on proxy variables and anecdotes?

$150/hr is the maximum of the range they give, and then you have to subtract payroll taxes, equipment, marketing, etc. On top of that, it's not like plumbers are working jobs back to back 40hrs a week.

Yes. They get to write off equipment, marketing, etc. "It's not like plumbers are working jobs back to back 40hrs a week." In California probably more like 60hrs.

Yup, the closer analogy is consulting but with the massive capital investment of equipment, vehicle + professional insurance.

I'd be surprised if the take-home on $150/hr is even close to $60/hr.

> Yes. They get to write off equipment, marketing, etc. "It's not like plumbers are working jobs back to back 40hrs a week." In California probably more like 60hrs.

Are you just making up numbers? You've asked for sources, other commenters (including myself) have provided several, and the sources disagree with what you're stating spectacularly. I'm baffled by how confident you're being about something that, as far as everyone can currently tell in this thread, is plainly incorrect.

Have you tried to get a decent plumber lately? My plumber just bought a fancy new truck and boat. Previously he traded favors with my contractor to remodel both their homes on the cheap.

> You could also just become a plumber and probably make $300k a year[i] (~150$/hour).

...how many plumbers do you personally know? The reason everyone in this thread is pushing back against this is because the suggestion is ludicrous. It doesn't make sense in terms of market dynamics - the barrier to becoming a plumber is significantly lower than the barrier to becoming a software engineer. That's not intended to demean the profession, it's just true - you do not necessarily need any education (and the profession embraces this far more than tech does, which is itself progressive on that point) and requisite domain knowledge is not as extensive or as rapidly changing as software engineering. You need technical knowledge, but unless you're taking the most complex plumbing jobs and the most mundane engineering work, they're simply not comparable.

Some plumbers do well, particularly if they own their own business and are thereby successful entrepreneurs. But you can't judge the typical outcome of a professional career by the entrepreneurs who use it as a basis for their business. The modal plumber doesn't earn anything resembling $300k/year - according to the BLS, there isn't a single state where the average is even $100k.[1] Where are you getting your data, from how much they're billing you when you have someone fix a problem in your house?

____________________________________

1. https://www.bls.gov/ooh/construction-and-extraction/plumbers...

> "AI" isn't nearly as developed or useful as the amount of VC money being dumped into it.

That's the entire point of VC though - VCs don't put money into regular roads or into normal houses, as these things have already got their usefulness determined and we know they're darn useful. VCs pump money into things that look like they could use a few billion dollars to get developed and ready for the mass market. AI fits that perfectly according to your description.

VCs who put money into things that are already proven are VCs who are missing out on the Next Big Things. "AI" will become fully developed largely using the money that VC is putting into it.

Completely agree. These are intelligent people who have done their research and are now making an informed bet. Whether or not their investment was justified remains to be seen.

Good point.

My issue is that when I hear that a startup is AI-focused, that means they're just implementing something with machine learning (and possibly unnecessarily). These startups generate a lot of hype, which I believe is unwarranted.

I imagine Google researchers are working towards advancing AI techniques and knowledge more generally, not trying to disrupt some industry with existing machine learning techniques.

This comment cuts to basic point. Positions vaguely labeled "Senior AI researcher" are for research directors, not engineers. Taking a Udacity ML class and "teaching yourself some linear algebra" and Python is similar to achieving basic literacy in foreign language - you may be able to ask for directions, but try writing a novel.

Any job that requires significant expertise will command salaries at the top of the curve. Corporate litigation and IP attorneys command 400k-2m salaries, yet we don't get articles about IP lawyer bubbles, because the competition is vicious.

More interesting highly paid salaries to debate:

Neurosurgeons Cardiologists Attorneys Plumbers Consultants Investment bankers Traders Product Managers

Yeah that bubble will burst when AI/ML replaces us or America* creates a surplus of competent engineers. Don't hold your breath for that. I made top $$$ (on a relative scale) in college tutoring aspiring computer scientists and engineers who hated these subjects.

*Not in America? Yep, that's different.

Let's see:

(1) Calculus? I did well in courses in calculus, advanced calculus, advanced calculus for applications, general topology, modern analysis, real analysis, measure theory, functional analysis, and lots of applications to US national security and business. Taught calculus in a good university. Published peer-reviewed original research in calculus. Studied a lot more in calculus -- exterior algebra, numerical methods, the Navier Stokes equations, ordinary differential equations, deterministic optimal control, optimization, etc.

(2) Linear algebra. Worked in it for numerical methods, various approaches to curve fitting, multi-variate statistics. Did undergraduate honors paper on group representations that is just more linear algebra. Programmed a lot with linear algebra. Worked carefully through some of the best books, e.g., one by E. Nearing, student of E. Artin, and Halmos, assistant to von Neumann. Did a lot in linear algebra as part of optimization. Same for the FFT. Same for Markov processes. Reinvented k-D trees and associated cutting plane tree back tracking for nearest neighbors. First actual course in linear algebra was an "advanced, second" course from world expert R. Horn -- found very little new and led the class by wide margins on all measures. Using linear algebra and LINPACK for a small part of current startup.

(3) Crucial tools in the applications desired by AL, ML, data science need a lot in probability, stochastic processes, statistics, and optimization. Have excellent backgrounds in all of those.

(4) Ph.D. research in stochastic optimal control, a grand example of a machine doing some learning as it exploits the history of the stochastic process driving the system to be controlled.

(5) Software. Programmed in lots of languages for lots of operating systems for lots of applications, especially for US national security.

So, it looks like (1)-(5) would be good qualifications for the "shortage" of people for AI/ML?

But, I sent over 1000 resumes; my resume is on several public resume collections; I've applied to Google, Microsoft, and many others. I've never been arrested or charged with a crime other than minor traffic violations. I have not been convicted to a traffic violation in over 10 years. I've never used illegal drugs or used legal drugs illegally. I'm a native born, US citizen in the US. I have no handicaps and no serious medical problems. I've done good work in applied math and computing at GE, FedEx, and, in AI, at IBM's Watson lab.

Result: I don't get phone calls from recruiters. Basically I'm 100% totally unemployable at anything above manual work at minimum wage.

Shortage? Nonsense.

So, I'm doing my own startup based on computing and some applied math I derived. To users, my work will be just a Web site. But the site is an excellent, and the first even good, solution for a problem pressing for about 90% of everyone in the world with access to the Internet. I've designed the Web site and server farm and written the code. The code is 100,000 lines of typing based on Microsoft's .NET. The 100,000 lines have lots of comments and about 24,000 programming language statements. The code appears to run as intended and to be ready for at least early production.

Still, with that background, I'm 100% unemployable, at ANYTHING above minimum wage. This situation has cost me my chances of owning a house, getting married, having children, and my savings and inheritance.

Shortage????

I don't know dude, I've seen you post about this many times.

I suspect it has something to do with the way you (a) look, or (b) socially interact with people. I don't mean this in an offensive way, but if you look / sound like Donald Knuth you probably won't get a job because you're not Donald Knuth. You're just some quirky eccentric person that probably won't fit in because you can't make small talk around a water fountain or you don't have an interesting story to tell after a weekend because you probably don't actually do anything on weekends that's fun. I don't know, it could be a hundred reasons. I bet it's got absolutely nothing to do with how smart you are, what you know, or who you studied under. I mean, for starters, why not just go back to academia? Are they rejecting you too?

At some point, if you're being rejected for 1000 jobs, I think you need to have an honest talk with yourself and ask whether the problem is you or whether the problem is the job market. You're a smart guy, I'm sure you can run the math and answer that question. Best of luck!

This situation has nothing to do with water fountain small talk or any such things. Proof: My resume copies got nearly no meaningful responses at all. That is, the whole job hunting effort died long before any opportunity for small talk.

Again, once again, over again, yet again, one more time, the qualifications (1)-(5) on a resume are terrific for AL/ML and innovative applications but get no responses at all.

Lesson: The claims that there is a shortage of people with good qualifications is total BS.

So, I'm starting my own business with some crucial, core original applied math. The math is difficult to duplicate or equal, especially by people who don't value (1)-(5) above.

Each job requires someone to create it. For the special case of a company founder, he creates his own. I'm no longer hoping someone will create a job for me and, as a company founder, am creating my own.

For my Web site, it's enough for lots of people to like the site. I hope and believe that a lot of people will like the site. For the revenue, it's enough for the advertisers that my Web site delivers lots of clicks from users with good demographics, and I hope and believe that will happen. And, except for trivialities, those two are enough.

Point: Back to the "lesson" above, there's no shortage.

Why are people claiming a shortage when there isn't one? There is a standard list of reasons, and there may be reasons not on the list. I don't have information enough to select the reasons in this case.

You must be aware of the elephant in the room....ie your age. Yes its illegal to discriminate but that doesn't change the defacto hiring reality.

I can think of no better way to demonstrate that you are right than to succeed at building your own business. OTOH if the business fails IMO you ought consider that you need someone objective to review your perspective on and approach to building a career.

Perhaps start by having a friend with a steady gig look at you resume? Perhaps forward it to a recruiter? Or if by the time you read this you are filthy rich, congratulations!

Reply on news.ycombinator.com