zlacker

>>zuhaye+(OP)
Other companies nickel and diming engineers think they are somehow getting something for free. All the highest performing companies in the world pay insane amounts to their programmers

>>ldjkfk+E4
Paying someone a lot doesn't magically make them a good engineer. You have to actually hire the best people, and there's only so many of them to go around.

>>jdm221+h6
I'm sympathetic to this argument, because I know both low-quality and high-quality engineers at most FAANGs, but in principle isn't offering a lot of money a good way to attract talent?

In the case of OpenAI you also have interesting tech and a brand that will massively accelerate your career if you want to stay in that field. So while yeah, you have to hire the best people; and OpenAI like everyone else will be paying $LOTS to a few useless engineers in the mix, I think "$900K and everyone knows it" is a pretty good substitute for talent-spotting, which anyway can't be bought.

>>biztos+i8
I worked with the enterprise sales team for awhile when I worked at Udacity and we did some research on job motivations to help answer questions about recruiting & retaining good engineers. We found that salary needs to be “enough” (varies by local market) but that people will literally relocate their families and lives to work on problems that they find interesting and that are a unique opportunity. The salary bump needs to be very large to achieve the same effect as “amazing opportunity”.

Both may be benefiting openAI here. There’s lots of places to work on LLMs but “GPT” is a product/brand that people have heard of, and if OP is to be believed then they certainly seem to be paying “enough”.