- He's on track to becoming a top-tier AI researcher. Despite having only one year of a PhD under his belt, he already received two top awards as a first-author at major AI conferences [1]. Typically, it takes many more years of experience to do research that receives this level of recognition. Most PhDs never get there.
- Molmo, the slate of open vision-language models that he built & released as an academic [2], has direct bearing on Zuck's vision for personalized, multimodal AI at Meta.
- He had to be poached from something, in this case, his own startup, where in the best case, his equity could be worth a large multiple of his Meta offer. $250M likely exceeded the expected value of success, in his view, at the startup. There was also probably a large premium required to convince him to leave his own thing (which he left his PhD to start) to become a hired hand for Meta.
Sources:
Exactly. What's the likelihood of that?
Sufficiently high that Meta is willing to pay such an amount of money. :-)
Zuck's advantage over Sir Isaac (Newton) is that the market for top AI researchers is much more volatile than in South Sea tradeables pre-bubble burst?
Either that or 250M is cheap for cognitive behavior therapy
But if he's getting real, non-returnable actual money from Meta on the basis of a back of envelope calculation for his own startup, from Meta's need to satiate Mark Zuckerberg's FOMO, then good for him.
This bubble cannot burst soon enough, but I hope he gets to keep some of this; he deserves it simply for the absurd comedy it has created.
I hope for all of our sake's that you're right. I feel confident that you're not :(
Meta will have more AI-compute than he ever hoped to get at his - and most other - startups.
It's fine to think that we're in a bubble and to post a comment explaining your thoughts about it. But a comment like this is a low-effort, drive-by shoot-down of a comment that took at least a bit of thought and effort, and that's exactly what we don't want on HN.
It's the same reason that sports stars, musicians, and other entertainers that operate on a global scale make so much more money now than they did 100 years ago. They are serving a market that is thousands of times larger than their predecessors did, and the pay is commensurately larger.
1) The winner immediately becomes a monopoly
2) All investments are directed from competitors, to the winner
3) Research on AGI/ASI ceases
I don't see how any of these would be viable. Right now there's an incremental model arms race, with no companies holding a secret sauce so powerful that they're miles above the rest.
I think it will continue like it does today. Some company will break through with some sort of AGI model, and the competitors will follow. Then open source models will be released. Same with ASI.
The things that will be important and guarded are: data and compute.
So maybe the issue is more about staying in the top N, and being willing to pay tons to make sure that happens.
Maybe it's just me but I haven't been model-hopping one bit. For my daily chatbot usage, I just don't feel inclined to model-hop so much to squeeze out some tiny improvement. All the models are way beyond "good enough" at this point, so I just continue using ChatGPT and switching back and forth from o3 and 4o. I would love to hear if others are different.
Maybe others are doing some hyper-advanced stuff where the edging out makes a difference, but I just don't buy it.
A good example is search engines. Google is a pseudo-monopoly because google search gives obviously better results than bing or duckduckgo. In my experience this just isn't the case for LLM's. Its more nuanced than better or worse. LLM's are more like car models where everyone makes a personal choice on which they like the best.
We are already seeing diminishing returns from compute and training costs going up, but as more and more AI is used in the wild and pollutes training data, having validated data becomes the moat.
Yes, but just like in an actual arms race, we don't know if this can evolve in a winner takes all scenario very quickly and literally.
OpenAI has a limited protective moat because ChatGPT is synonymous with generative AI at the moment, but that isn’t any more baked in than MySpace (certainly not in the league of Twitter or Facebook).
AI? Do you mean LLMs, GPTs, both, or other?
Why won't AI follow the technology life cycle?
It'll always be stuck in the R&D phase, never reach maturity?
It's on a different life cycle?
Once AI matures, something prevents consolidation? (eg every nation protects its champions)
If this were winner-take-all market with low switching costs, we'd be seeing instant majority market domination whenever a new SOTA model comes out every few weeks. But this isn't happening in practice, even though it's much easier to switch models on OpenRouter than many other inference providers.
I get the perception of "winner-take-all" is why the salaries are shooting up, but it's at-odds with the reality.
Hint: Researchers from both companies said publicly they employ generalized reasoning techniques in these IMO models.
"Fancy chatbots" is a classic AI use case. ELIZA is a well-known example of early AI software.
At work we are optimising cost by switching in different models for different agents based on use case, and where testing has demonstrated a particular model's output is sufficient.
> If the very best LLM is 1.5x as good as good as the next-best, then pretty much everyone in the world will want to use the best one
Is it? Gemini is arguably better than OAI in most cases but I'm not sure it's as popular among general public
I think what we're seeing here is superstar economics, where the market believes the top players are disproportionately more valuable than average. Typically this is bad, because it leads to low median compensation but in this rare case it is working out.
Well only if the price is the same. Otherwise people will value price over quality, or quality over price. Like they do for literally every other product they select...
You are not one random hyperparameter away from the SciFi singularity. You are making iterative improvements and throwing more compute at the problem, as are all your competitors, all of which are to some degree utterly exchangeable.
I tried multiple and they all fail and some point so I let another LLM take over.
As soon it’s not some boilerplate thing it becomes harder to get the correct result
It would be unfortunate if something like Grok takes the cake here.
Yes, the figures are nuts. But compare them to F1 or soccer salaries for top athletes. A single big name can drive billions in that context at least, and much more in the context of AI. $50M-$100M/year, particularly when some or most is stock, is rational.
Like I definitely think it is better for society if the economic forces are incentivizing pursuit of knowledge more than pursuit of pure entertainment[0]. But I think we also need to be a bit careful here. You need some celebrities to be the embodiment of an idea but the distribution can be too sharp and undermine, what I think we both agree on is, the goal.
Yeah, I think, on average, a $100M researcher is generating more net good for a society (and world) than a $100M sports player or actor. Maybe not in every instance, but I feel pretty confident about this on average. But at the same time, do we get more with one $100M researcher or 100 $1M researchers? It's important to recognize that we're talking about such large sums of money that at any of these levels people would be living in extreme luxury. Even in SV the per capita income is <$150k/yr, while the median income is medium income is like half that. You'd be easily in the top 1%. (The top 10% for San Jose is $275k/yr)
I think we also need to be a bit careful in recognizing how motivation can misalign incentives and goals. Is the money encouraging more to do research and push humanity's knowledge forward? Or is the money now just another means for people that just want money to exploit, who have no interest in advancing humanity's knowledge? Obviously it is a lot more complicated and both are happening but I think it is worth recognizing that if things shift towards the latter than they actually make it harder to achieve the original goals.
So on paper, I'm 100% with you. But I'm not exactly sure the paper is matching reality.
[0] To be clear, I don't think entertainment has no value. It has a lot and it plays a critical role in society.
“Our Rock Stars Aren't Like Your Rock Stars”
Locking up more of the world's information behind their login wall, or increase their ad sales slightly is not enough to make that kind of money. We can only speculate, of course, but at the same time I think the general idea is pretty clear: AI will soon have a lot of power, and control over that power is thought to be valuable.
The bit about "building great things" certainly rings true. Just not in the same way artists or scientists do.
If you do not believe this narrative, then your .com era comment is a pretty good analysis.
While there's a lot of money going towards research, there's less than there was years ago. There's been a shift towards engineering research and ML Engineer hiring. Fewer positions for lower level research than there were just a few years ago. I'm not saying don't do the higher level research, just that it seems weird to not do the lower level when the gap is so small.
I really suspect that the winner is going to be the one that isn't putting speed above all else. Like you said, first to market isn't everything. But if first to market is all the matters then you're also more likely to just be responding to noise in the system. The noisy signal of figuring out what that market is in the first place. It's really easy to get off track with that and lose sight of the actual directions you need to pursue.
Remember capsule networks?
Don’t get me wrong, they are smart people - but so are thousands of other researchers you find in academia etc. - difference here is scale of the operation.
How much revenue does Google make in a day? £700m+.
They're not high because of performance/results alone.
I can't help but think that the structure of this kinda hints at there being a bit of a scam-y element, where a bunch of smart people are trying to pump some rich people out of as much money as possible, with questionable chances at making it back. Imagine that the people on The List had all the keys needed to build AGI already if they put their knowledge together, what action do you think they would take?
You can just doodle away with whatever research interests you the most, there's no need to deliver a god mode AI to the great leader even if you had the ability to.
Given more money they just subcontract out increasing fractions of the overhead of life in order to do more of the work.
That they are building a team with a selection bias for this too.
I suggest we saw a clear demonstration of that with the Metaverse and the answer is no, but more intensely than two letters can communicate.
.. that had already leaked and would later plummet in value.
Paying with stock is a neat option for companies that are projected to grow - the very reason why all of big tech desperately wants to be perceived as growing - since it doesn't cost them anything, since they can dilute existing stock holdings at will by claiming the thing they are buying with new made up stock will make the company that much richer.
So you as a potential investor should ask yourself, will this one employee make Meta worth $255M more? Assuming they are paying $5M in cash and the rest in stock.
what more embarrassing is that they do this to poach AI talent because they massively behind on AI races, like they literally still to the extend of king of social media (fb,instragram,whatsapp etc)
they should do better given how much data, money, resources they have tbh
These AI researchers will probably have far more impact on society (good or bad I dont know) than the athletes, and the people who pay them (ie zuck et al) certainly thinks its worth paying them this much because they provide value.
But I counsel a different perspective: it's quite remunerative to be selling tulips when there's a mania on!
I think negative feelings are coming from more of a “why are they getting paid so much to build a machine that’s going to wreck everything” sort of angle, which I find understandable.
Will never understand the logic. They is literally better than an average senior dev, if he has been offered 250m package.
In contrast, a skilled football player lands somewhere between neutral and positive, as at the very least they entertain millions of people. And I'm saying that as someone who finds football painfully dull.
but I dont see news articles about athletes in such negativity, citing their young age etc.
When someone had a successful business model that offsets the incredible costs let me know, but it is all hypothetical.
My anecdotal observation talking to people: Most tech cycles I've seen have hype/excitement but this is the first one I've been in at least that I've seen a large amount of fear/despair. From loss of jobs, automating all the "good stuff", enriching only the privileged, etc etc people are worried. As loss aversion animals fear is usually more effective for engagement especially if it means a loss of what was before - people are engaged but I suspect negative towards the whole AI thing in general even if they won't say it on the record. Fear also creates a singular focus; when you are threatened/anxious its harder for people to engage with other topics and makes you see AI trend as something you would want to see fail. That paints AI researchers as not just negative; but almost changing their own profession/world for the worse which doesn't elicit a positive response from people.
And for the others, even if they don't have this engagement, the fact that this is drowning out other things can be annoying to some tech workers as well. Other tech talks, articles, research, etc is just silent in comparison.
YMMV; this is just my current anecdotal observations in my limited circle but I suspect others are seeing the same.
The money here (in the AI realm) is coming a handful of oligarchs who are transparently trying to buy control of the future.
The difference between the two scenarios is... kinda obvious don't you think?
Are there 250 million AI specialists and the ones hired by Meta still come out on top?
Also much more people are affected by whatever AI is being developed/deployed than worldwide football viewers.
Top 5 football leagues have about 1.5billion monthly viewers. Top 5 AI companies (google, openai, meta etc) have far more monthly active users.
OpenAI doesn’t do the usual equity for employees, they famously do profit sharing.
These AI researchers fundamentally need access to tons of compute, data and engineers in order to pursue their passion.
For example, Meta seem to be spending so much so they don't later have to fight a war against an external Facebook-as-chatbot style competitor, but it's hard to see how such a thing could emerge from the current social media landscape.
Why why would they need fears about a quasi-facebook chatbot?
Anyhow, with the Metaverse as a flop, and apparently having self-assessed Meta's current LLM efforts as unsatisfactory, it seems Zuck may want to rescue his reputation by throwing money at it to try to make his next big gamble a winner. It seems a bit irrational given that other companies, and countries, have built SOTA LLMs without needing to throw NBA/NFL/rockstar money around.
It is the same thing in sports as well. There will only ever be one Michael Jordan one Lionel Messi one Tiger Woods one Magnus Carlsen. And they are paid a lot because they are worth it.
>> Meta seem to be spending so much so they don't later have to fight a war against an external Facebook-as-chatbot style competitor
Meta moved on from facebook a while back.It has been years since I last logged into facebook and hardly anybody I know actually post anything there. Its a relic of the past.
It’s not just uncomfortable but might not be true at all. Sports is practically the opposite type of skills: easy to measure, known rules, enormous amount of repetition. Research is unknown. A researcher that guarantees result is not doing research. (Coincidentally, the increasing rewards in academia for incrementalist result driven work is a big factor in the declining overall quality, imo.)
I think what’s happening is kind of what happened in Wall Street. Those with a few documented successes got disproportionately more business based to a large part on initial conditions and timing.
Not to take away from AI researchers specifically, I’m sure they’re a smart bunch. But I see no reason to think they stand out against other academic fields.
Occam’s razor says it’s panic in the C-suites and they perceive it as an existential race. It’s not important whether it actually is, but rather that’s how they feel. And they have such enormous amount of cash that they’re willing to play many risky bets at the same time. One of them being to hire/poach the hottest names.
It is not a question of exquisitely rare intellect, but rather the opportunity and funding/resources to prosper.
There is hope for humanity.
Jokes aside, how and why?
I don't know what the current tally on his metaverse fiasco is, but if he can spend billions upon billions on that, then poaching AI researchers and engineers for a fraction of that isn't really out of character.
Why: Its a bubble.
https://marvelcinematicuniverse.fandom.com/wiki/William_Gint...
With $250M they can easily buy their own competitive AI compute rig ...
We are in a time where the impact can be measured more quickly, so good for the engineers taking advantage of this.
Oh, you got a $8M offer from Meta? That's it? Interesting... They're offering Jane $250M.
I worry that those who became billionaires in the AI boom won't want the relative status of their wealth to become moot once AGI hits. Most likely this will come in the form of artificial barriers to using AI that, for ostensible safety reasons, makes it prohibitively difficult for all but the wealthiest or AGI-lab adjacent social circles to use.
This will cause a natural exacerbation of the existing wealth disparities, as if you have access to a smarter AI than everyone else, you can leverage your compute to be tactically superior in any domain with a reward.
All we can hope for is a general benevolence and popular consensus that avoids a runaway race to the bottom effect as a result of all this.
Mr. Deitke, who recently dropped out of a computer science Ph.D. program at the University of Washington, had moonlighted at a Seattle A.I. lab, the Allen Institute for Artificial Intelligence. There, he led the development of a project called Molmo, an A.I. chatbot that juggles images, sounds and text — the kind of system that Meta is trying to build.
Probably Zuck is trying to prop up his failed Metaverse with "AI". $250 million is nothing compared to what has already been sunk into that Spruce Goose.
They are IC roles for the most part
Yes, I want them to excel in sports, but these articles provide a crucial counterweight to the all-too-common narrative that becoming a pro athlete is the ultimate dream. Instead, these stories show that being exceptional in STEM isn’t just something you do because you are curious, you find it interesting, you enjoy it (all great motivators), or to please parents and teachers (generally, probably, lesser quality motivators): these stories show that being exceptional in STEM can open doors to exciting, high-impact careers.
It’s been amazing to watch my kids begin to reframe STEM not as the “sensible” thing to do, but as something genuinely cool, aspirational, and full of opportunity.
Meta can make 40 of these hires (over a number of years) and still be in a better place than feeling like they have to make a single $10B acquisition (if they could even make it at that point)
Microsoft Research had hundreds of big brains for decades that all worked independently and added little of value to the business.
It just seems very short cited right now.
Or should I and my friends all be targeting 7-8 figure jobs?
Bear case: No, there's nothing you can do. These are exceptionally rare hires driven by FOMO at the peak of AI froth. If any of these engineers are successful at creating AGI/superintelligence within five years, then the market for human AI engineers will essentially vanish overnight. If they are NOT successful at creating AGI within five years, the ultra high-end market for human AI engineers will also vanish, because companies will no longer trust that talent is the key.
Bull case: Yes, you should go all in and rebrand as a self-proclaimed AI genius. Don't focus on commanding $250M in compensation (although 24, Matt Deitke has been doing AI/ML since high school). Instead, focus on optimizing or changing any random part of the transformer architecture and publishing an absolutely inscrutable paper about the results. Make a glossy startup page that makes some bold claims about how you'll utilize your research to change the game. If you're quick, you can ride the wave of FOMO and start leveling up. Although AGI will never happen, the opportunities will remain as we head into the "plateau of productivity."
If you're going to offer an opinion contrary to the majority, you should at least have a convincing argument why.
Just a thought:
Assuming that Meta's AI is actually good. Could it rather be that having access to a massive amount of data does not bring that much of a business value (in this case particularly for training AIs)?
Evidence for my hypothesis: if you want to gain a deep knowledge about some complicated specific scientific topic, you typically don't want to read a lot of shallow texts tangentially related to this topic, but the few breakthrough papers and books of the smartest mind who moved the state of art in the respective area. Or some of the few survey monographs of also highly smart people who work in the respective area who have a vast overview about how these deep research breakthroughs fit into the grander scheme of things.
These types of comp packages also seem designed to create a kind of indentured servitude for the researchers. Instead of forming their own rival companies that might actually compete with facebook, facebook is trying to foreclose that possibility. The researchers get the money, but they are also giving up autonomy. Personally, no amount of money would induce me to work for Zuckerberg.
For me the Meta storm of billions in hiring was enough to start selling any tech giant related stock.
It is about to crash, harder than ever.
It is indeed; those people hired at those salaries are not going to "produce" more than the people hired at normal salaries.
Because what we have now is a "good enough" so getting a 10x better LLM isn't going to produce a 10x increase in revenue (nevermind profit).
The problem is not "We need a better LLM" or "We need cheaper/faster generation". It's "We don't know how to make money of this".
That doesn't require engineers who can creat the next generation SOTA in AI, that requires business people who can spot solutions which simply needs tokens.
EUR:USD has been rising for a reason.
and then immediately bounce back to higher than it was before
Paying 250m to a genius to more deeply entrap user time and attention is going to look diabolical unless there are measurable user life improvement outcome measurements... if metas more slop addiction that 250m is a diabolical contract
To me it's obvious that these extremes create perverse incentives, so the people who will take those jobs won't amount to much. I m willing to bet that Meta's AI efforts are doomed from now on.
After that, it's manual labor like the plebs or having enough savings to ~~last them the rest of their lives~~ invest and "earn" passive income by taking a portion of the value produced by people who still do actual work.
Such a big salary for a non-management position! Things are getting really wrong in this iteration of the US ultraliberalism.
Maybe I need to get one of these recruitment agents.
Some people are rightly pointing out that for quite a lot of things right now we probably already have AGI to a certain extent. Your average AI is way better than the average schmuck on the street in basically anything you can think of - maths, programming, writing poetry, world languages, music theory. Sure there are outliers where AI is not as good as a skilled practitioner in foo, but I think the AGI bar is about being "about as good as the average human" and not showing complete supremacy in every niche. So far the world has been disrupted sure, but not ended.
ASI of course is the next thing, but that's different.
I think a possible scenario is that we see huge open source advances in training and inference efficiency that ends up making some of the mega-investments in AI infrastructure look silly.
What will probably ‘save’ the mega-spending is (unfortunately!) the application of AI to the Forever Wars for profit.
Whenever and however it comes, it’s going to be a bloodbath because we haven’t had a proper burst since 2008. I don’t count 2020.
Chances are good that while they’re competitive for sure, what they really have that landed them these positions is connections and the ability to market themselves well.
I assume you are going for “there are no more useful resources to acquire so those with all the resources overpay just to feel like they own those last few they don’t yet own”.
The money and resources they have available is astronomical.
Instead they spend it on future proofing their profits.
What a sad world we have built.
But the promises turned into stock boosting lies; the environmental good into vote buying for climate change deniers, and space exploration into low earth cell-towers.
Very aptly, the Manhattan Project or Space Race weren't aimed at the improvement of mankind per se. Motivation was a lot more specific and down to earth.
We should not listen to people who promise to make Mars safe for human habitation, until we have seen them make Oakland safe for human habitation. We should be skeptical of promises to revolutionize transportation from people who can't fix BART, or have never taken BART."
- https://idlewords.com/talks/sase_panel.htm
"Living standards in Poland in 2010 had more than doubled from 1990. In the same time period, in the United States, I’ve seen a whole lot of nothing. Despite fabulous technical progress, practically all of it pioneered in our country, there’s been a singular failure to connect our fabulous prosperity with the average person.
A study just out shows that for the median male worker in the United States, the highest lifetime wages came if you entered the workforce in 1967. That is astonishing. People born in 1942 had better lifetime earnings prospects than people entering the workforce today.
You can see this failure to connect with your own eyes even in a rich place like Silicon Valley. There are homeless encampments across the street from Facebook headquarters. California has a larger GDP than France, and at the same time has the highest poverty rate in America, adjusted for cost of living. Not only did the tech sector fail to build up the communities around it, but it’s left people worse off than before, by pricing them out of the places they grew up."
https://soundcloud.com/adventurecapitalists/moving-mt-fuji
lyrics: https://genius.com/Adventure-capitalists-moving-mt-fuji-lyri...
but it's not the same reading the lyrics, you really need to hear his voice
Any left wing / socialist person on HN should be ecstatic - literally applauding with grins on their faces - that workers are extracting such sums out of the capitalist class. The hate for these salaries is mind boggling to me, and shows a lot of opposition to labor being paid what they are due is more about envy than class consciousness
I don't feel strongly about these salaries beyond them being an indication of deep dysfunction in the system. This is not healthy, for a market or for a society. No-one should be paid these amounts but I don't care about these developers because they don't run the system.
I've benefited from devs being paid well. Not that well. But same thing in concept.
I'm guessing not, but both the AI expert and the CEO are agents for the owner class: it is owners like Elon and Sam Altman that are deciding to pay these huge salaries and they are doing it for the same reason that corporate boards of directors pay CEOs huge salaries: namely, to help the owners accumulate more capital.
This gentleman now has an entirely different set of problems to everyone else. Do you think he will now go on to advocate for wealth equality, housing affordability, healthcare etc, or do you think he'll go buy some place nice away from his former problems and enjoy his (earned) compensation in peace?
A 1b $ anonymous software engineer is likely leading to 5000 more revenue than a 200k talented Ai engineer.
Personal anecdote time. One of the people named in the press as having turned down one of these hyper-offers used to work in an adjacent team, same "pod" maybe, whatever adjacent. That person is crazy smart, stands out even among elite glory days FAANG types. Anyways they left and when back on the market I was part of the lobby to get them back at any price, had to run it fairly high up the flagpole (might have been Sheryl who had to sign off, maybe it was Mark).
Went on to make it back for the company a hundred fold the first year. Clearly a good choice to "pay over market".
Now it's a little comical for it to be a billion or whatever, that person was part of a clique of people at that level and there's a lot of "brand" going into a price tag like that: the people out of our little set who did compilers or whatever instead of FAIR are just as good and what is called "AI" now is frankly not that differentiated (the person in question maintained as much back in the day).
But a luck and ruthlessness hire like Zuckerberg on bended knee to a legitimate monster hacker and still getting dissed? Applause. I had Claude write a greentext for the amusement of my chums. I recommend it kek.
Because if it's not funding the revolution (peaceful or otherwise) why exactly would a leftist applaud these salaries?
one would think that a talented academic/researcher getting a 1B salary would impress the socialist people but it doesn't because it was never about that. it was about bringing rich people down and not much else.
Edit oops, knowledge was outdated, it’s about 270.000.
Right now capital expenses are responsible for most of AI's economic impacts, as seen by the infrastructure spend contributing more to GDP than consumer spending this year.
