I have some British clients in my network and with similar experience I am doing well at 300 pounds per day. I know that it’s very low. But I’m fully remote working from Asia.
> GPT-3 was said to require something like 150gb of VRAM.
By all accounts GPT-3 is wildly inefficient in resource use; OpenAI runs like a company that’s concerned with the functionality it can achieve by calendar date, and has an almost infinite bankroll to do it. But, other actors in the field have different priorities, and the various open source or, at least, available-to-use models seem to be far more efficient than the OpenAI models of similar function (though they are behind the newest OpenAI models in function.)
I gave a try at Alpaca-LoRA with tloen's tuning and it definitely feels in reach of GPT 3. Not quite as good, but some of that may just be in whatever's going on with OpenAI's hidden prompts encouraging lots of text out of the model.
Happy to disappoint you. But I started adding more content to my personal website which was really just a CV on a wordpress website… with the help of ChatGPT. It looks genuine and all the content is very tweaked. My calendar entry now has a task to write content alongside ChatGPT for an hour every week and schedule it to be posted randomly. Started getting some followers on LinkedIn because of it.
It's definitely not ChatGPT or AI (or at least not just that), it's remote work as well. I'm seeing a lot of companies hiring worldwide remote talent at a huge discount. This time its different from the outsourcing we have seen in the past. Because you now have experienced remote US and EU developers living somewhere where their cost of living allows them to be very competitive on rates and salary. An US developer living in Asia, can charge 50-100$ per hour, which comparatively to the US, would be 100$+-500$ per hour. And that is happening a lot now.
I have lowered my salary expectations, and am doing quite well while consulting now.
Exactly the reason why I said all pro-WFH people should actually be anti-WFH. I’ve traveled around the world. There are many smart and hungry people willing to work at night for your American salary.
The number one thing protecting your job is the office.
So, people should be anti-WFH to maintain this artificial moat that so far has kept other smart and hungry people from making a decent living and improving their standard of living, simply because they're at the wrong geographical location?
This seems like a blinkered and selfish perspective.
If the number one thing protecting your job is the office, then quite frankly that job probably shouldn't exist.
Tech workers who adopt this perspective shouldn't be surprised to find themselves in the same position as manufacturing workers when the United States was deindustrialized over the last 4 decades. Labor in the U.S. is not on an even footing with labor overseas because the USD cost of living and real estate prices are so much higher here.
Flattening out global entry wages like this will be great for the holders of corporate equity capital but would probably even rugpull U.S. real estate prices.
> but would probably even rugpull U.S. real estate prices
Good, it's been increasing at an out of control pace for a long time, but especially since the pandemic.
I'm saying this as a homeowner myself, whose home went up in 'value' almost 50% since I bought it five years ago (it really hasn't, if anything it should have gone down a bit from wear and tear, it desperately needs a new roof, deck, fence, and some gnawed up corners of walls and trim patched up from puppies when they went through teething).
I'm not talking about going down 50% for a year or two and then rebounding when the Fed re-juices the markets with liquidity, I'm talking about grinding down over a couple of decades to something like -75% and staying there, and this would have huge implications beyond just where buyers & sellers can transact.
That it's true - or rather - the current state of affairs, doesn't make it right.
Restricting the (relative) access to opportunities and resources to a select group of people by means of artificial barriers has never worked in the long run, and fortunately so. Otherwise, most people would still be living in abject poverty with only a tiny aristocratic class having agency and control over their lives and standard of living.
I find it particularly baffling that while people would usually claim to be all for social justice and a more equitable distribution of resources, the second their own privileged position is at risk, those ideas go out of the window.
Somehow you think that your unselfish perspective will result in corps raising wages abroad? Maybe a bit but certainly they will be aware enough to control wage inflation there too. The benefits aren't going to accrue to the commoner.
I realize HN is largely US-based, but sometimes still do a double-take when I see people say "all" and mean US-only. As one of the all pro-WFH people, I very much remain pro-WFH whether it pertains to working for a US or local company (and pretty sure I would even if I were in the US).
Outsourcing has always been possible even without WFH possibilities, but many companies reverted from that for good reason. There are also advantages of WFH on whole other levels, like many environmentally. I don't get the point about workplace angst (x), and if there is any, that genie will be hard to put back into the bottle. Personally, don't see this happening though for things that were valid before much for before more WFH.
(x): On the other hand, that is also what is usually driving crazy things like the Mexican wall, to name it symbolically.. so I can at least comprehend partly.
IDK about that. I work for a massive company with employees around the world. We need people in all time zones. We need people who can do work in specific regions and markets. We need people who can communicate in English and other languages and understand cultural subtleties. Also have experience with outsourcing in several other companies and have seen some terrible results.
False. Many companies which offer WFH limit job applicants to US Citizens only because of the difficulties related to supporting international tax systems.
I think we are too late for any sort of intervention here. It's not like the 0.1% hasn't been trying to access the US job market for the past decade(s) for remote work. It was bound to happen, we just entered a phase of acceleration. Most people with cushy well paying jobs, who are very pro WFH, just never did the back of the envelope calculation when promoting WFH. And well WFH (or just lets call it "remote work") as a default, is definitely here to stay. People arbitraging their income abroad (US worker, remotely working and spending in Asia, South America, etc.), is also here to stay and becoming increasingly more common while salaries are falling (60k in Asia is like 100-200k in the US). And companies capitalizing on their benefits is also here to stay (low cost employees who can be fired at whim, for a fraction of the cost of local workers with the same skills).
I don't doubt this is part of it (I have a friend who lives in Thailand who is happy to get $40/hr tho he's a really good dev) but how many of these devs can there be?
I don't think the number can be so high where it is all of it.
I think it's just economic uncertainty. People won't hire unless they NEED to, and often the company CAN get by without that extra dev.
> living in Asia, can charge 50-100$ per hour, which comparatively to the US, would be 100$+-500$ per hour. And that is happening a lot now.
Numbers please.. you mean only now due to the WFH move upper management realised they don't need to watch butts in chairs and can hire anyone from all over the world and look at that economic advantage, though that had been always possible before, and was even often attempted with varying success, but now no concerns anymore? Doubts..
I think the big change is that companies are now hiring more or less directly 1:1 (often with a employer of record for convenience). Previously companies contracted with outsourcing firms and had no real say over the quality of individuals. At least in my narrow experience the new model works well - there are great people in India, Pakistan, Kenya and Nigeria etc. who are just as good as on-site people and can probably live very well on their salary compared to local living costs.
ll_mama, do you mind sharing where and how you are connecting with companies and arranging your contracting gigs? Which languages, specialties and/or industries are you seeing demand? Thanks very much.
I run some blogs with SEO on particular niches which I frequently update and rank fairly high for particular framework issues. I don't want to get into details, but companies google these issues, find my posts, fail at solving them with the steps which are very clearly laid out by me, and then reach out to me to see if I am available to fix their particular issue. That is about 30% of the clients that I get. The other 70% are past employers or clients and references through past clients and former colleagues.
So let them? What's the deal, why can't we have a society where people who want to work from home, do so while those who want to work remotely do so as well? I do know that I am deciding for myself (100% remote).
Because if companies decide that in office is more productive or more reliable, remote options will dry up. And the fact most big tech companies are going back to office suggests they have the data to show it is more effective.
Where is the data? If this is true, then this is something companies will have to learn to deal with, and compensate differently for. If I enjoy working from home better, but am 10% less productive, please pay me 10% less. It's still not worth for me to show up to an office.
