> Hiring AI-skilled talent is a priority for 73% of employers—but among these, three out of four say they are unable to meet their AI talent needs.
> Employers expect their workers to earn up to 47% more in salaries if they upskill in AI.
> AI will become more integral to the way business is done, with 93% of businesses expecting they will be using AI solutions across their organizations in the next five years.
And here I am desperately trying to find this "AI" company because of all the time I invested learning "AI". No one wants to hire me despite having papers in "AI".
Managers feel obligated to support the 'future' to show investors they're cutting edge so they express some innovation in the "pipeline". I'm sure you'd see the same stats for any trending tech development we've had in the past. Whether it was "big data", machine learning, and now AI (still ML but flashier label). Typically, however, it's mostly theater. The actual investments don't reflect the expressed "priorities". Outside of tech, there's really not too many AI specific job postings (despite how integral it supposedly is). At this point most managers don't have enough experience with AI to know if it has strategic value, but they don't want to risk seeming out of touch.
I have the same impression. It looks like you must have a PhD from a top school plus relevant publications on venues like NeurIPS, ICML and others to start competing in this game.
> Employers expect their workers to earn up to 47% more in salaries if they upskill in AI.
> AI will become more integral to the way business is done, with 93% of businesses expecting they will be using AI solutions across their organizations in the next five years.
And here I am desperately trying to find this "AI" company because of all the time I invested learning "AI". No one wants to hire me despite having papers in "AI".