All articles tagged with #ai researchers
The article discusses the high valuation and lucrative offers for top AI researchers like Mira Murati, highlighting Meta's intense efforts to recruit leading talent in the AI race, with some individuals receiving offers exceeding a billion dollars, raising questions about the value of human talent in the tech industry.
Meta has hired four prominent AI researchers from OpenAI to strengthen its Superintelligence team, reflecting intense competition for top AI talent in the industry.
Meta is offering multi-million-dollar pay packages to AI researchers for its Superintelligence Lab, but contrary to rumors, it is not providing $100 million signing bonuses; instead, offers are structured as comprehensive compensation packages, primarily in stock options, with some top executives potentially receiving very large total pay. The company is actively hiring top talent from OpenAI and other AI firms, investing heavily in AI development without indiscriminately handing out huge signing bonuses.
Silicon Valley researchers are using a new metric called p(doom), short for "probability of doom," to assess the likelihood of artificial intelligence (A.I.) causing catastrophic events or threatening human survival. This statistic has gained popularity as concerns about the rapid advancement of A.I. grow. Estimates of p(doom) range from 5% to 50%, reflecting varying levels of belief in the potential dangers posed by A.I.
OpenAI is reportedly attempting to attract top AI researchers from Google by offering compensation packages worth millions of dollars, as well as access to advanced tech resources. The company has already hired numerous former Google and Meta employees. OpenAI is also considering an employee share sale that could value the company at $86 billion. If successful, recruiters could offer compensation packages ranging from $5 million to $10 million. OpenAI has previously hired at least 93 individuals who previously worked at Google and Meta.
An open letter calling for a pause on AI development, signed by nearly 35,000 individuals, including AI researchers and concerned citizens, revealed a broad array of perspectives among the signatories. While some expressed concerns about the potential risks posed by AI, such as biased advice and job displacement, many were primarily worried about the pace of competition between tech companies and the spread of disinformation. The letter's focus on doomsday scenarios overshadowed other important concerns, making it harder for less extreme issues to gain attention or inspire action.
Top AI researchers are pushing back on the current ‘doomer’ narrative focused on existential future risk from runaway artificial general intelligence (AGI). They argue that this focus on existential risk is happening to the detriment of a necessary focus on current, measurable AI risks — including bias, misinformation, high-risk applications, and cybersecurity. Many say that the bombastic views around existential risk may be “more sexy,” but it hurts researchers’ ability to deal with things like hallucinations, factual grounding, training models to update, making models serve other parts of the world, and access to compute.
A group of top AI researchers, engineers, and CEOs have issued a 22-word statement warning about the existential threat they believe that AI poses to humanity. The statement calls for mitigating the risk of extinction from AI as a global priority alongside other societal-scale risks such as pandemics and nuclear war. The statement is the latest high-profile intervention in the complicated and controversial debate over AI safety.
Robert Reich, associate director of Stanford's Institute for Human-Centered Artificial Intelligence, compared AI researchers to late-stage teenagers, saying that their frontal cortex is massively underdeveloped, and their sense of social responsibility is not so great. The analogy is apt as AI researchers are risk-happy thrill-seekers, and many of them want to live forever with the help of AI. The field is young, and conscious choices are being made by adults, but how those choices work out for the rest of us remains to be seen.