[HN Gopher] Manually verified job salaries/offers in Artificial ...
___________________________________________________________________
Manually verified job salaries/offers in Artificial Intelligence
Author : cracker_jacks
Score : 75 points
Date : 2020-09-28 17:46 UTC (5 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (aipaygrad.es)
(TXT) w3m dump (aipaygrad.es)
| djohnston wrote:
| I keep telling myself I enjoy living in Europe more than the
| U.S., but when I see these numbers...
| bgirard wrote:
| Looks like it's incorrectly including the full 4 year equity
| grant in the yearly compensation grant.
| throwaway287391 wrote:
| One of the creators (Devi Parikh, a prof and RS at Facebook)
| tweeted about it and has answered a few questions about that:
| https://twitter.com/deviparikh/status/1310610025212071939
|
| Seems well aware that equity offers usually vest over 4 years
| e.g.: https://twitter.com/deviparikh/status/1310654018654367744
| MiroF wrote:
| You're telling me multiple L4s are getting $254k/yr in
| equity? That's surprising to me, and I thought I had a sense
| of the market.
| compthrowaway wrote:
| Nope. The L4ish offers certainly would be far too low if that
| was 4 years, and these are supposedly "manually verified."
|
| The hovertext also says they explicitly divide by N.
| bgirard wrote:
| I only meant the top ones. There's a big discontinuity in the
| data and this mistake is more logical than seeing $3m equity
| grants that no other site can cross validate.
| fnbr wrote:
| I think it's a mix, where some are, and some aren't. I'd be
| _very_ surprised to see a L6 making $1M/year.
| joshuamorton wrote:
| Research scientist ladder at Google is a higher comp band
| than swe by, at least for lower levels, about 1 level. So an
| L6 RS getting high l7 swe comp isn't out of the question.
|
| That said, the person getting such a large stock grant with a
| lower base salary is suspicious. The other two offers for L6
| are clearly correct as they are (160K/year stock is too low
| for L6), but that one is odd. Doesn't mean it's wrong though.
|
| For some context, initial grants are usually larger than
| refresh grants, and an L6 SWE (who again is in a lower band
| than L6 RS) can expect a >200K stock refresh. So a new hire
| RS at that level isn't going to get less than 200K annually
| (or 800K/4yr).
| snug wrote:
| You don't get a sign-on bonus every year either. Agreed, I'd
| say at most you're getting $250k/year in equity, no way L6 is
| getting $3.2M in equity over 4 years
| [deleted]
| lowiqengineer wrote:
| Yikes the Amazon numbers are really low...
| apazzolini wrote:
| The irony in needing to manually verify job salaries/offers in
| the AI field is just so [img-italian-chef-kiss]
| woeirua wrote:
| I really wish that sites like these would branch out to more
| employers beyond just the FAANGs because the number of jobs in
| AI/ML at these employers is just a small fraction of what we see
| in the larger industry. You can prove that to yourself by just
| looking at LinkedIn. I think if we had a truly representative
| sampling of all people working with "AI/ML" related titles, we'd
| see that the the true total comp distribution is much lower, and
| probably just slightly better than a typical software engineer's
| total comp with a similar amount of experience.
| langitbiru wrote:
| That's the goal of my project: PredictSalary
| (https://predictsalary.com)
|
| The goal of my project is to predict the salary range from job
| opportunities (and Linkedin profiles in the future) using Deep
| Learning method (and ad-hoc rules). My plan is to cover
| countries outside US as well.
| alexjray wrote:
| My thoughts exactly.
| PragmaticPulp wrote:
| The reality is that FAANG-type companies are the only companies
| large enough to pay these salaries and with enough hires to
| keep it anonymous.
|
| These sites are also heavy on selection bias. If someone
| arrives at this site with a $150K AI salary, they're not going
| to go to the trouble of submitting it and getting it accepted.
| Instead, they're going to start updating their resume and
| browsing job sites while they seek these higher salaries.
| throw9872349872 wrote:
| Just some anecdata, I'm in ml not in faang and make more than
| the top end of the survey in the OP.
|
| If I were to give some guidance, I'd suggest skipping on
| faang as they top out where they top out, and go downstream
| to smaller public companies who are growing and where you can
| deliver real value. Companies like snapchat doubled in 1
| year, square doubled in 1 year, etc etc. If you're already
| joining a trillion dollar company you need to enter as a
| leader to earn the top end.
|
| You'll never see these stats because 1) you don't gain
| anything from sharing and 2) it's easy to find who you are at
| smaller companies.
| gcheong wrote:
| I'm curious to know how you got into ML? Did you go the
| degree route? PhD? I'm guessing that's where the top end of
| the salary range goes to but would be interested to know
| your personal path and if you have any advice on how to
| start.
| throw9872349872 wrote:
| PhD. From what I found, the most successful people are
| the ones that marry the technical with the business and
| consistently deliver value. So it's not talk/hype, but
| real value and competitive advantage and ability to
| communicate and effectuate change.
| alexjray wrote:
| Spot on
| woeirua wrote:
| I don't know... Glassdoor's system seems to work pretty well
| for collecting this kind of data. Sure the number of reported
| salaries is maybe too small to say anything specific about
| individual companies, but in aggregate places like Glassdoor
| and LinkedIn could probably tell us with high certainty what
| the distribution looks like.
| compthrowaway wrote:
| In a world where (A) compensation is typically mostly in
| the form of liquid equity grants and (B) compensation
| amounts change rapidly year-on-year, Glassdoor's system
| vastly understates compensation in the field.
| woeirua wrote:
| But you have to recognize that this system is very
| atypical outside of FAANGs. Most large companies have
| very modest stock incentive programs.
| MiroF wrote:
| > FAANGs
|
| Do we just use FAANGs to mean every West coast software
| company? Because otherwise it is very typical of non-
| FAANGs as well.
| Zaheer wrote:
| Co-founder of Levels.fyi here - it's not so much that these
| sites solely support FAANG companies, it's just harder to get
| other people to add their salaries. We're working to encourage
| folks at other companies to contribute through dedicated
| company pages [1], etc. It's had a real impact and we've
| started to collect much more data across more companies /
| roles. We're also working to incentivize contributions more and
| I do think we'll be in a position to have a more representative
| sample over the next few months.
|
| [1] https://www.levels.fyi/company/
| IMAYousaf wrote:
| I appreciate the transparency of the data collection. I go to
| Levels for my first look over the Glassdoor's of the world
| because I can actually trust the provenance of the data.
| ryandrake wrote:
| Seems that's the major flaw in self-reported salary
| aggregation sites: Because it's self-reported, you're
| generally going to get only one side of the bell curve: The
| side that people feel good about reporting. The FAANG
| employees, probably just the subset of them that are well
| paid. Who wants to go to a web site to report to the world
| about their utterly modest, average salary? How depressing! I
| wouldn't want to.
|
| When I go to a site like levels.fyi looking to compare my
| comp, I'd have to believe that I'm not seeing "average"
| engineering salaries, but an average of the very best
| salaries at the very best companies. EDIT: Looks like you
| addressed my question in your comment already. Removing it!
| throw9872349872 wrote:
| If I can provide some guidance, there is no upside to share
| your data when you're at a small company because it's really
| easy to find who you are. If there is a way to obscure the
| company, for example, generalize to market cap or size ($1-3b
| mkt cap company with 2500-5000 employees) and bucket that
| way.
| giantg2 wrote:
| I like this site. It's also depressing. I see that new hires
| at my company are making substantially more than I was at
| that level, even accounting for inflation.
| lotsofpulp wrote:
| If you're on the seller of labor side of the transaction,
| you should be happy labor is selling for more. Typically if
| new hires are getting paid more, then experience people
| will be getting paid more too.
| giantg2 wrote:
| In general that would be true. The problem for me is that
| it requires switching companies. I'm not able to do that
| since I naively did the jobs I was assigned. Now I'm a
| Neoxam and FileNet resource with zero prospects.
| etothepii wrote:
| This does likely require some action on your side to
| achieve though.
|
| Typically, no-one will come and give you that 50% you are
| missing out on by not having pushed for an extra 4.1%
| every year for 10 years.
| giantg2 wrote:
| Based on what I've seen, one probably has to switch
| companies.
| sethhochberg wrote:
| At my current company, we're experimenting with adding a
| market rate salary review component to our regular
| performance review cycle - we have a target salary
| percentile (based on years of experience, skillset,
| location, etc with aggregate market data from PayScale)
| for where we start new hires in a given role, and if for
| whatever reasons the market shifts upwards and leaves
| someone on staff below the new-hire percentile, we adjust
| upwards. We hope that regular pay increases, incentives,
| etc mean nobody's compensation ever falls lower than
| market rate after they're hired, but we also want to make
| sure we have a mechanism in place to correct if it does.
| etothepii wrote:
| We're trying to solve the salary sharing problem more generally
| with https://peerwyse.com by having you submit estimates of the
| salaries of your LinkedIn connections and then sharing back the
| aggregated view.
|
| If you bring a few colleagues from the same locality / industry
| your estimates of mutual connections can be astonishingly
| insightful without anyone needing to break the taboo of
| revealing their own compensation information.
| user5994461 wrote:
| It's so odd to see a site like that in es, the top domain for
| Spain.
|
| Do FAANG have offices in Spain? I don't think so. The site is
| totally out of touch with reality, misleading younger developers
| who see that and think oh great that's what I will aim to after I
| graduate.
|
| A developer in Spain would be a lucky to have a job in the first
| place, for one tenth of that.
| ignoranceprior wrote:
| It's a domain hack. The site name is "AI Paygrades", so
| "aipaygrad.es".
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Domain_hack
|
| Is it also misleading that so many startups are based in
| British Indian Ocean Territory (.io)?
| asciident wrote:
| It's not odd at all. It's a common way to set up your website,
| that's been happening for decades.
| richrichardsson wrote:
| On the off chance that whomever runs this website sees this (or
| anyone else who might know the answer):
|
| any idea how to stop getting the multiple Spanish language B2B
| spam every day?
|
| I also run a .es domain and it seems that simply registering a
| domain gets you added to a ton of shitty spam lists.
| mam2 wrote:
| It's /2 on all of these if it's not FANNG.
|
| The stats doesn't make sense, it's skewed to the top.
| johnward wrote:
| I would have thought these companies paid a better base salary
| being in such a high cost area.
|
| Also, do FAANGs typically grant more equity after the 4 year
| vesting period?
| thor24 wrote:
| They do grant enough to keep your comp in the similar range
| (but usually comp does go down). So general rule of thumb is to
| just switch every 4 years to get another grant :P
| fnbr wrote:
| Yes, they do. It's typically slightly less than what you get
| initially, although that can vary depending on your
| performance.
| filoleg wrote:
| > Also, do FAANGs typically grant more equity after the 4 year
| vesting period?
|
| Yes, they typically hand it out every year with their
| additional stock grants/refreshes.
|
| When you start, you initially get a big dump of shares that
| vest over 4 years. Then every year, you get some more shares
| that vest over another 4 years. By the time your big initial
| stock grant is fully vested in 4 years, you already accumulated
| 4 years worth of yearly stock grants, that they pretty much
| replace and outnumber (in aggregate) that initial big stock
| grant, esp. since each year your yearly stock grant will
| probably be larger than the previous one.
|
| Note: that's not the case at every single FAANG. For example,
| MSFT (which I know specifically isn't in the FAANG
| abbreviation, but is still often counted as a part of it; and I
| know that what I am describing below holds true for Amazon too,
| but they have it even harder, according to my friends working
| there) is specifically known for those yearly grants (that
| usually come at the annual rewards time) being too small. I can
| attest from my own experience, because all of my additional
| stock grants pooled together over the past 3 years accumulate
| to less than a half of my last vest of the initial big stock
| grant. Even if those 3 years of accumulated stock grants were
| to fully vest all at once on the same day. And, mind you, my
| situation isn't even that bad compared to the average, because
| I have been hitting the rewards performance metrics
| significantly above the 100% target, hovering around 180-200%
| every single year.
| ptmcc wrote:
| Yes. There is usually a base retention grant every year, which
| is roughly one quarter of a new hire grant, with a 4 year vest.
|
| Then there are tiers of additional performance grants on top of
| the retention grant, which can be significant, perhaps as much
| or more as an entire new hire grant.
|
| In a well-designed RSU grant system, employees basically end up
| on an RSU vesting treadmill that always has that carrot on a
| stick in front of them. The golden handcuffs to keep them
| around.
|
| Specifics vary by company, but that's the template most start
| from.
| arasdean2 wrote:
| This is cool, but would be better if you could see years of
| experience factored in as well like they have on levels:
|
| https://www.levels.fyi/Salaries/Software-Engineer/Machine-Le...
| bayesian_horse wrote:
| I'm trying to get started in ML/AI and data science, and by now
| I'd work for minimum wage. And yes, probably because my CV is
| screwed up.
| autocorrect26 wrote:
| Are these salaries unique to research scientist in AI only, or do
| FAANGs pay these type of salaries for research scientist outside
| of AI in those same pay grades?
| cvhashim wrote:
| Unsure if this answers your question but a colleague of mine 2
| years out of school is at a 12 person Robotics/Autonomous
| Vehicle startup based in SV making 160k base.
| rich_sasha wrote:
| Interesting, basically it is 4 companies, plus DeepMind, plus
| some small residual.
|
| I remember looking more closely at this sector, from a UK
| perspective, and finding next to no well-paying jobs, never mind
| interesting (well-paid on the scale of this webpage). If there
| are some I'm dying to know!
|
| But if this is a wider trend, it is odd how not just the
| internet, personal data etc that are owned by FAANGs, but the
| market in AI jobs too.
| kendallchuang wrote:
| It would be nice to see the years of experience and education for
| the different positions. AI/ML is a rapidly growing field the
| past few years so a lot of these individuals probably came from
| academia or different industries.
| [deleted]
| atg_abhishek wrote:
| Agreed, without the number of years of experience (there is
| possibly a loose correlation with the levels indicated) it is
| hard to make sense of the data
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2020-09-28 23:00 UTC)