Honest question: how much top-tier ML research comes out of IBM Research? I feel like they get what they paid for---and they pay shit from what I hear.
Academia is not the same as industry, so total comp is not comparable. Tenure, more work freedom, social prestige are intangibles that would need to be factored into academic pay.
I worked at TJ Watson research center at the end of the 20th century but not in a research role or on ML.
It’s weird because IBM spends a lot on research (6 billion when I was there) but they are always trying to get marketable things out of said research. They still had chip fabs when I was there so they had people working on chemistry physics and math for chip things. They had chess playing machines (deep blue) and a backgammon one using ai.
They hired a lot of phds who were for the most part very self motivated. Very smart people. I’m not sure if they are still getting the best and brightest but for a lot the IBM letters are a draw.
I'd be very interested in other's opinions, but my observation is that high quality research != good products. There's a major disconnect between the labs and those building/selling the products.
Should have partnered with Google if you actually wanted something that works. IBM had its heyday, but the brain drain of talent and knowledge has already happened and it likely will never recover.
