Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
The Almighty Buck AI

Top AI Salaries Dwarf Those of the Manhattan Project and the Space Race 54

Posted by BeauHD from the compare-and-contrast dept.
An anonymous reader quotes a report from Ars Technica: Silicon Valley's AI talent war just reached a compensation milestone that makes even the most legendary scientific achievements of the past look financially modest. When Meta recently offered AI researcher Matt Deitke $250 million over four years (an average of $62.5 million per year)—with potentially $100 million in the first year alone -- it shattered every historical precedent for scientific and technical compensation we can find on record. [Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg reportedly also offered an unnamed AI engineer $1 billion in compensation to be paid out over several years.] That includes salaries during the development of major scientific milestones of the 20th century. [...]

To put these salaries in a historical perspective: J. Robert Oppenheimer, who led the Manhattan Project that ended World War II, earned approximately $10,000 per year in 1943. Adjusted for inflation using the US Government's CPI Inflation Calculator, that's about $190,865 in today's dollars -- roughly what a senior software engineer makes today. The 24-year-old Deitke, who recently dropped out of a PhD program, will earn approximately 327 times what Oppenheimer made while developing the atomic bomb. [...] The Apollo program offers another striking comparison. Neil Armstrong, the first human to walk on the moon, earned about $27,000 annually -- roughly $244,639 in today's money. His crewmates Buzz Aldrin and Michael Collins made even less, earning the equivalent of $168,737 and $155,373, respectively, in today's dollars. Current NASA astronauts earn between $104,898 and $161,141 per year. Meta's AI researcher will make more in three days than Armstrong made in a year for taking "one giant leap for mankind." The report notes that the sums being offered to some of these AI researchers top even the most popular sports athletes. "The New York Times noted that Steph Curry's most recent four-year contract with the Golden State Warriors was $35 million less than Deitke's Meta deal (although soccer superstar Cristiano Ronaldo will make $275 million this year as the highest-paid professional athlete in the world)," reports Ars.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Top AI Salaries Dwarf Those of the Manhattan Project and the Space Race More

Top AI Salaries Dwarf Those of the Manhattan Project and the Space Race

Comments Filter:

  • Profit (Score:4, Insightful)

    by reanjr ( 588767 ) on Saturday August 02, 2025 @09:02AM (#65562246) Homepage

    Private sector employees working on for profit endeavors have salaries that outstrip government employees working on government contracts.

    News at 11.

    • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

      by Registered Coward v2 ( 447531 )

      Private sector employees working on for profit endeavors have salaries that outstrip government employees working on government contracts.

      News at 11.

      Exactly. And the people referenced were in it for much more than just money. However, it is valid to point out that salaries in high profile jobs have jumped faster than inflation. Joe Namath signed a $4,414,536.76 3 year contract as a quarterback that would be a paltry $4,414,536.76 today; which would just be the signing bonus for a 5 or 6 round player in the draft.

      • Re: (Score:2, Informative)

        by Anonymous Coward
        I'm not going to check your math, but the fact that both numbers are the same to 9 significant figures seems a little fishy.

        • I'm not going to check your math, but the fact that both numbers are the same to 9 significant figures seems a little fishy.

          Yea, I copy and pasted the wrong number. Namath signed a $427,000 contract in '65. Thanks

  • Competition (Score:3)

    by phantomfive ( 622387 ) on Saturday August 02, 2025 @09:16AM (#65562254) Journal
    When there is demand for a resource, the price will go up until the demand drops (some of the "demanders" drop out).

    More companies want AI researchers than there are researchers to fill the positions, so the salaries go until some companies give up.

  • Step 3: Profit (Score:2, Interesting)

    by oneiros27 ( 46144 )

    They're trying to hire people that they think they can make money based on their work.

    The Manhattan folks were still doing experimental stuff that might not have actually worked in the end. You might compare them to the folks working on the mini-reactor projects today.

    The AI folks are getting salaries not all that far off from NFL players... and yeah, it doesn't require abusing your body, but there's still the possibility of burnout when you realize what your AI is being used for and it conflicts with your

  • The Next Gold Rush (Score:5, Insightful)

    by SlashbotAgent ( 6477336 ) on Saturday August 02, 2025 @10:09AM (#65562312)

    Forget cyber security. The next gold rush is AI research and engineering.

    I expect a rapid and massive university graduate build up with everyone hitting the market almost at once. Everyone with high hopes of absurd salaries competing for a withering few jobs.

    No one has ever seen this before.

  • He's spent about $45 billion on his "Metaverse" which went absolutely nowhere.

    While I personally see more potential payoff for AI than for the Metaverse, it kind of looks like chasing losses.

    • I get the impression that Zuck sees AI as the missing piece of his Metaverse. Metaverse is a place for your virtual friends, and advertising.

      • Could be. If so, I don't see the Metaverse becoming any more appealing than it already isn't.

      • I get the impression that Zuck sees AI as the missing piece of his Metaverse. Metaverse is a place for your virtual friends, and advertising.

        I am pretty sure that Zuck does not draw a distinction between "virtual friends" and "advertising". If your "friends" are entities created and controlled by a multi-trillion dollar business with an avowed plan of increasing profits every year without limit they of course will be encouraging you spend money in ways that profit the person who owns them -- which is not you.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by allo ( 1728082 )

      Metaverse is not dead yet, but it is also not alive. I wonder if they will still make something out of it. But one still hears new plans every now and then.

      • I'd characterize it as un-dead...limping along, but not really alive.

        The only people who want to spend large amounts of time in a mataverse, are addicts. It's literally a disease that people try to avoid.

        The metaverse is fine, per se, and I can see it possibly becoming a fad like Pokemon Go. But like all fads, and Pokemon Go, it will then become a memory for most people. There's only so much to capture people's interest in a virtual world.

  • According to the summary any burger-flipper earns more than Oppenheimer.

  • Gonna be real good or real bad (Score:3)

    by jacks smirking reven ( 909048 ) on Saturday August 02, 2025 @10:49AM (#65562394)

    There's some data the AI is kind of the scaffold holding the economy together right now:

    Honey, AI Capex is Eating the Economy [paulkedrosky.com]

    These are very large numbers given that before 2022 AI capex was likely less than 0.1% of GDP. It has, in three years, grown by at least 10x from there, and perhaps more than that.

    Compare this to prior capex frenzies, like railroads or telecom. Peak railroad spending came in 19th century, and peak telecom spending was around the 5G/fiber frenzy. It's not clear whether we're at peak yet or not, but ... we're up there. Capital expenditures on AI data centers is likely around 20% of the peak spending on railroads, as a percentage of GDP, and it is still rising quickly. And we've already passed the decades ago peak in telecom spending during the dot-com bubble

    • So why do economists complain that AI isn't showing up in productivity stats? Is it possible productivity doesn't really measure productivity and economists are just using it to be dismal as usual?

      • I'd have to see who is saying that but it's possible that productivity like at it's base level (production per hour of labor or something like that) is a different metric. Hell it could be argued the fact productivity is flat but investment is quite high is a definitive sign of a bubble.

        Economics is a soft science for a reason, 5 economists can look at the same data and have 5 different predictions.

      • Because the workers still need to be convinced to use it and learn new workflows. Most people on /. will tell you that AI can't make them more productive because they are so brilliant and unique, despite the fact that it absolutely can.

  • I know Slashdot (and Ars Technica as well) both deny even the possibility of creating AGI/ASI using current methods, but if, if these companies achieve it, these salaries will be nothing. They are trying to solve the universe.

  • The explanation is simple (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Mr. Dollar Ton ( 5495648 ) on Saturday August 02, 2025 @11:09AM (#65562430)

    The taxes are way, way too low, so lucky cretins like zuck have yuge bags of disposable cash.

    "AI" ain't going to make everyone's life better, but it sure can suck all the water and use up all electricity trying to make more cash for zuck.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by m00sh ( 2538182 )

      The taxes are way, way too low, so lucky cretins like zuck have yuge bags of disposable cash.

      "AI" ain't going to make everyone's life better, but it sure can suck all the water and use up all electricity trying to make more cash for zuck.

      Meatbags use more water and electricity and gasoline (and produce a lot of nasty stuff).

  • If/when AI works (Score:3)

    by rsilvergun ( 571051 ) on Saturday August 02, 2025 @12:01PM (#65562504)
    it will accomplish something the ruling class has dreamed of for millennia.

    It will eliminate their dependency on the peasantry.

    Like everyone here keeps asking, "who's gonna buy their products?".

    You don't think they've thought of that?

    You don't think that being dependent on filthy consumer trash like you doesn't gall them? Doesn't infuriate them?

    Do you really think they enjoy being *your* servant?

    So yeah, that's worth _any_ price.

    • You don't think that being dependent on filthy consumer trash like you doesn't gall them? Doesn't infuriate them?
      Do you really think they enjoy being *your* servant?

      No, I don't think they consider themselves "serving" us at all. I think they consider people at large to be a resource that they need to control and farm for riches as fast and hard as they can. As such, every additional person is an additional resource to farm. They are not serving anyone other than themselves.

      They also know that every

    • it will accomplish something the ruling class has dreamed of for millennia.

      It will eliminate their dependency on the peasantry.

      LOL. This is soooo stupid. Their economy is structured so that there will always be peasants. If you were able to get rid of ALL of the peasants in one swell foop, then more would be created by their policies until there are only two people left on the planet, one the owner, the other, a peasant/slave.

      Peasantry should be evidence that a person is incapable of working or lacking the mental facilities to be a worker. Unfortunately, currently, peasants are created more by greed of others rather than by innate

  • All that money was printed and given away, and now it has to be spent. This is the same scam that is causing all these ridiculous "valuations" and the high price of eggs

  • I said last month that we had reached peak hype, when some schlub was being offered $100M compensation package at Meta.
    I retract that statement.

    I am re-issuing that statement with new numbers. Some schlub with masking tape holding his glasses together, just got a compensation package of $250M.
    Can one researcher, engineer, employee actually make THAT much difference?

    I suggest we've hit a new high water mark in absurdity aka hype.

    I'm personally holding out for a $1Billion compensation package. Also I want at
    • Can one CEO, jock or movie star actually make that much of a difference? Maybe... and with the jocks it is actually measurable to a degree. So it will be with these employees.

  • the reason is private equity (Score:3)

    by usedtobestine ( 7476084 ) on Saturday August 02, 2025 @01:37PM (#65562624)

    Private equity will be the bane of our existence until the game is over an no one wins.

  • The guys developing the AI that will decimate jobs are still being paid a heck of a lot less in total than the salaries of the jobs they replace

  • What's that in 1637 guilders [wikipedia.org]?

  • Let's put the numbers in perspective. Deitke could earn $100 million in his first year at Meta. That's about $2 million per week. That's the same amount a person earning $40k/year would earn over a 50 year career.

    He gets as much in one week as many people get in their entire lives.

    Of course, that means he's still in the minor leagues. The wealthiest people in the world gain tens of billions per year [forbes.com], thousands of times more than most people get in their lives.

    It's an amazing illustration of a thoroughly

  • Spoiler Alert, the Manhattan project was not a private enterprise, and their goal was not to 'cash-in', they wanted to build a bomb to end a war that was consuming thousands of soldiers/day.

    AI is a money-making private enterprise, so please explain the basis for comparing the two?

  • Lots of organizations spending lots of Other People's Money on AI hardware, energy consumption and now apparently, salaries. How do they plan to make a profit?

  • "There's GOLD in them thar hills!!!!"

    While ignoring that while there are monster salaries for a few, not many.
    And the rest of the seekers will either just get by and be poor suckers in the H1B salt mines.

  • According to the 1942-1946 pay chart, a general officer with over 30 years of service made an annual salary of $8000. This would include all the famous American Generals in WW2 who led major operations such as the D-Day landing. The lowest private in WW2 made $50 per month, or $600 per year, and he was often the one taking the greatest risk. This is only base pay, so they probably made slightly more on top for hazardous duty, flight pay, etc. But WW2 salaries were low across the board, because we had just e

Slashdot Top Deals

Isn't it interesting that the same people who laugh at science fiction listen to weather forecasts and economists? -- Kelvin Throop III

Close