The real 30 under 30 imo you have never heard of(twitter.com)
twitter.com
The real 30 under 30 imo you have never heard of
https://twitter.com/karpathy/status/1748816969858720232
12 comments
I'm not sure why you think that hiring less intelligent people will make a manager look good? Quite the contrary; less intelligent people make more mistakes that make you look bad, and need more hand holding, which is just more work.
It's certainly true that hiring managers won't want someone massively overqualified for a role, as they will simply be bored and will likely not stay.
But never seen anyone filter out someone suitable for a role because they seem more intelligent than them though.
It's certainly true that hiring managers won't want someone massively overqualified for a role, as they will simply be bored and will likely not stay.
But never seen anyone filter out someone suitable for a role because they seem more intelligent than them though.
Humans are weird, and they don't behave how you might expect. But once you've lived for a while and seen it first hand many times, it starts to make sense in a weird way.
I'm reporting my own experience from having lived for quite a long time, hired quite a lot of people and seen others doing it.
Not disputing that people can make odd decisions; just that I have never witnessed what the OP said.
Not disputing that people can make odd decisions; just that I have never witnessed what the OP said.
Both can be right. Depends on the organization culture.
I think recruiting is potentially one of the best roles for a smart person (depending on level of extrovert) who can suss out bullshit and domain expertise rapidly; your comp is maximized by your ability to sorting hat folks into roles, tied to per candidate placement fees. Far more enjoyable than grinding out code 8-12 hours/day 5 days/week imho.
Insightful comment btw, more true than people admit.
Insightful comment btw, more true than people admit.
Recruiting is so, so important. I generally agree with the idea that the most important attribute for startup founders is to be great at hiring/recruiting.
Sadly, this is not something that the big tech cos focus on these days. Employees are viewed more as cattle than pets these days.
Sadly, this is not something that the big tech cos focus on these days. Employees are viewed more as cattle than pets these days.
Also true! But I argue employees are cattle in all cases. With founders, “you will help make me rich!” With BigCos, “you will help me build head count to build my empire!” Like poker, if you don’t know who the sucker at the table is, it’s you. Importantly, be self aware as the cattle and ruthlessly self optimize.
The real Einsteins aren't working at a large tech company. Karpathy is making shit up.
In my anecdotal experience, the more someone talks the less they know. Those with big followings, influencers, "thought-leaders" (in whatever industry they operate) all spew the same high-level garbage ad-nauseam. While the ones that are doing the interesting work rarely have a following, rarely post, and just focus on advancing their craft. But there is a lot of money to be made in the first category, so I get it.
"In AI at least...". Missing the specific hype context.
[deleted]
People generally don't want to hire those who are smarter than them, because they need subjects below them in the pecking order in order to make themselves look better. There are occasional exceptions, but the people who filter the resumes generally operate under these principles. It's unusual for exceptionally smart or talented people to work as recruiters.