Here Are the Traits OpenAI Executives Look For in New Hires
What kinds of skills do OpenAI leaders look for in new hires?
OpenAI's head of ChatGPT, Nick Turley, and chief research officer, Mark Chen, tackled this question on an episode of the OpenAI podcast released last week. It turns out that the two OpenAI executives don't seek out an Ivy League educational background or AI breakthroughs in new hires. Instead, they search for more intrinsic traits: curiosity, agency, and adaptability.
"Hiring is hard, especially if you want to have a small team that is very, very good and humble, and able to move fast," Turley admitted on the podcast. "I think curiosity has been the number one thing that I've looked for, and it's actually my advice to students when they ask me, 'What do I do in this world where everything's changing?'"
Related: Getting a Wharton MBA Was 'a Waste of Time,' According to a Global Bank CEO. Here's the Degree He Recommends Instead.
There's still so much that AI researchers have yet to learn about the technology that approaching its development requires "a certain amount of humility," Turley said.
He explained that building AI is less about knowing the right answers and more about knowing how to ask the right questions with an innate curiosity.
Turley looks for new hires who are "deeply curious" about the world and what OpenAI does.
Related: Goldman Sachs CIO Says Coders Should Take Philosophy Classes — Here's Why
Chen agreed with Turley and added that he looks for agency in new hires, or the ability to find problems and fix them with little oversight. He also searches for adaptability, or a willingness to adjust to a fast-changing environment.
"You need to be able to quickly figure out what's important and pivot to what you need to do," Chen stated.
Chen noted that agency and adaptability were more important than having a Ph.D in AI. He said that he himself joined OpenAI in 2018 as a resident without much formal AI training.
"I think this is a field that people can pick up fairly quickly," Chen said.
Related: These Are the AI Skills You Should Learn Right Now, According to the World's Youngest Self-Made Billionaire
There are other skills that other executives have pinpointed as essential in the age of AI. Alexandr Wang, the MIT dropout who co-founded data training startup Scale AI and now leads Meta's AI efforts, noted in an interview with WaitWhat media CEO Jeff Berman last year that prompt engineering was an important skill to have. He recommended studying fields like math and physics that emphasized long-term thought.
Meanwhile, Goldman Sachs' chief information officer, Marco Argenti, wrote in a post last year in the Harvard Business Review that he recommended studying philosophy in addition to engineering.
OpenAI was worth $300 billion as of March, following a record-breaking $40 billion fundraising round, the biggest tech funding round on record from a private company.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Forbes
20 minutes ago
- Forbes
Humanity 3.0: AI Makes Us Wiser — Just Not The Way We Think
LONDON - MAY 06: The Shadow Robot company's dextrous hand robot holds an Apple at the Streetwise ... More Robots event held at the Science Museum's Dana Centre on May 6, 2008 in London, England. The Dextrous Robotic Hand has a bank of 40 Air Muscles which make it capable of 24 movements and the most advanced robot hand in the World. (Photo by Jeff) In his 2017 New York Times bestseller, Life 3.0: Being Human in the Age of Artificial Intelligence, MIT professor Max Tegmark argued that AI has the potential to transform our future more than any other technology. Five years before ChatGPT made the risks and opportunities of AI the overriding topic of conversation in companies and society, Tegmark asked the same questions everyone is asking today: What career advice should we give our kids? Will machines eventually outsmart us at all tasks, replacing humans on the job market and perhaps altogether? How can we make AI systems more robust? Should we fear an arms race in lethal autonomous weapons? Will AI help life flourish like never before or give us more power than we can handle? In the book's press materials, readers are asked: "What kind of future do you want?" with the promise that "This book empowers you to join what may be the most important conversation of our time." But was it Tegmark's book that empowered us to join a conversation about the implications of AI? Or was it the AI technology itself? The Question Concerning Technology I have previously referred to the German philosopher Martin Heidegger in my articles here at Forbes. In 'This Existential Threat Calls For Philosophers, Not AI Experts', I shared his 1954 prediction that unless we get a better grip of what he called the essence of technology, we will lose touch with reality and ourselves. And in my latest piece, 'From Existential Threat to Hope. A Philosopher's Guide to AI,' I introduced his view that the essence of technology is to give man the illusion of being in control. Heidegger has been accused of having an overly pessimistic view of the development of technology in the 20th century. But his distinction between pre-modern and modern technology, and how he saw the latter evolving into what would soon become digital technology, also suggests an optimistic angle that is useful when discussing the risks and opportunities of the AI we see today. According to Heidegger, our relationship with technology is so crucial to who we are and why we do the things we do that it is almost impossible for us to question it. And yet it is only by questioning our relationship with technology that we can remain and develop as humans. Throughout history, it has become increasingly difficult for us to question the influence technology has on how we think, act, and interact. Meanwhile, we have increasingly surrendered to the idea of speed, efficiency, and productivity. But, he said as early as 1954, the advent of digital technology suggested something else was coming. Something that would make it easier for humanity to ask the questions we have neglected to ask for far too long. AI Reconnects Us With Our Questioning Nature While the implications of AI on science, education and our personal and professional lives are widely debated, few ask why and how we came to debate these things. What is it about AI that makes us question our relationship with technology? Why are tech companies spending time – and money – researching how AI affects critical thinking? How does AI differ from previous technologies that only philosophers and far-sighted tech people questioned in the same way that everyone questions AI today? In his analysis of the essence of technology, Heidegger stated that 'the closer we come to the danger, the brighter the ways into the saving power begin to shine and the more questioning we become.' This suggests that our questioning response to AI not only heralds danger – the existential threat that some AI experts speak of – it also heralds existential hope for a reconnection with our human nature. AI Reminds Us Of Our Natural Limitations The fact that we are asking questions that we have neglected to ask for millennia not only tells us something important about AI. It also tells us something important about ourselves. From stone axes to engines to social media, the essence of technology has made us think of our surroundings as something we can design and decide how to be. But AI is different. AI doesn't make us think we're in control. On the contrary, AI is the first technology in human history that makes it clear that we are not in control. AI reminds us that it's not just nature outside us that has limitations. It's also nature inside us. It reminds us of our limitations in time and space. And that our natural limitations are not just physical, but also cognitive and social. AI brings us face to face with our ignorance and challenges us to ask who we are and what we want to do when we are not in control: Do we insist on innovating or regulating ourselves back into control? Or do we finally recognize that we never were and never will be in control? Because we are part of nature, not above or beyond it. When faced with our own ignorance, we humans start asking questions. And questioning, according to ... More German philosopher Martin Heidegger, is the piety of thought. Photo: Ai Weiwei's "Circle of Animals: Zodiac Heads" Snake sculpture sits outside the Adler Planetarium in Chicago on January 28, 2015 in Chicago, Illinois. (Photo By Raymond Boyd) AI Makes Us Wiser By Reminding Us Who We Are Like the serpent in the Garden of Eden, AI presents us with a choice: Either we ignore our ignorance and pretend we still know everything there is to know. Or we live with the awareness that we may never find what we are looking for. All we can do is keep asking. For centuries we have convinced ourselves that we can use technology to speed up natural processes. Now technology is using us to speed up benefit of AI: Not about how we can use AI to gain more knowledge, or whether or not AI makes our critical thinking rod, but about facing us with our own ignorance and our own limitations as humans – like the serpent in the Garden of Eden, AI makes us ask questions about ourselves and our relationships with our surroundings. Confronting us with our own ignorance, it makes us seek a deeper understanding of ourselves and how we relate to technology and the nature in and around us. Philosophical questions about who we are, why we are here, and what is the right thing for us to do. What makes us human is not what we know, or how our cognition, intelligence, and mind work. It's that we know that we don't know and our ability to live with and develop strategies for d
Washington Post
24 minutes ago
- Washington Post
What does Trump's tax law mean for your health insurance?
RFK Jr. has big plans for your food. Here are the facts. May 2, 2025
Yahoo
25 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Opinion: How the Trump tax cut law will hurt the working class
Republican Sen. Lisa Murkowski of Alaska said it was 'agonizing' to vote for the tax cut bill President Trump signed on July 4. As details of the legislation come into focus, it's obvious why it might cause heartburn even for Republicans who passed it, with no Democratic votes. The One Big Beautiful Bill Act, as the law is clumsily known, will literally make the rich better off and the poor worse off. Some conservatives who want to pare the 'welfare state' may not care. But imposing austerity on millions of working-class voters is a stunning political risk for a party that is supposedly following President Trump's populist instincts. The law has two main elements. The first is a sweeping series of tax cuts and tax cut extensions that will generally benefit everybody but add trillions of dollars to the national debt. The second is a set of benefit cuts that are meant to reduce the overall cost of the bill. Those will hit working-class Americans and make the net effect of the bill punishing to them. The biggest part of the OBBBA is an extension of the tax cuts Trump signed into law in 2017. Those were due to expire at the end of this year. The OBBBA makes the current individual income tax rates permanent. Those are not 'tax cuts' per se, since tax rates will be the same in future years as they are in 2025. But the law does prevent what would have been a de facto tax hike if the 2017 rates expired and the higher 2016 rates went back into effect. The law also includes some new tax breaks, such as the elimination of tax on income from tips and overtime pay, up to certain limits. There's also a new tax break for some seniors and a much higher cap for deducting state and local taxes, which will mostly benefit wealthy homeowners who itemize deductions on their tax returns. The tax provisions generally benefit everybody, but the wealthy will gain the most. The average savings for all taxpayers will be about $2,900, compared with what the tax bill would have been if current rates expired, according to the Tax Policy Center. Those with incomes above $1 million would save nearly $60,000 on average. But the savings for workers with incomes below $30,000 would be less than $200 per year. Those provisions, at least, do no harm to most taxpayers. But the harm arrives when factoring in cuts to Medicaid, subsidies for people to buy health insurance through the Affordable Care Act, and food aid known as SNAP. The healthcare cutbacks will leave an additional 16 million people without coverage by 2034, according to the Congressional Budget Office. Cutbacks to the SNAP program could reduce or eliminate food aid going to 22 million families, according to the Urban Institute. Those changes will leave millions of Americans worse off. When accounting for the tax changes and benefit cuts combined, people in the lowest income quintile, with incomes below $13,500, will lose an average of $600 per year, according to the Yale Budget Lab. The next quintile will lose $65 per year. The healthcare and food aid cuts will have little impact on top earners, for obvious reasons. The top quintile will gain $6,500 in after-tax savings from all of the law's provisions, while the top 1% will net more than $30,000. This is what economists call a 'regressive' policy change because the economic burden falls more heavily on those with lower incomes. 'The bill has four overriding characteristics,' Howard Gleckman of the Tax Policy Center wrote recently. 'It is regressive, expensive, complicated, and it treats people who make roughly the same amount of money in very different ways.'Tax cut defenders often point out that the wealthy typically get the biggest tax cuts because they pay the most taxes in the first place. That's generally true. But the wealthy are a distinct minority, which means a regressive law such as the OBBBA dis-serves millions of voters, and possibly a majority of them. The bottom two income quintiles, for instance, include roughly 92 million taxpaying units, whether singles, married couples, or other designations. There are only 26 million taxpaying units in the top quintile. Maybe that's what Murkowski found so agonizing. 'Do I like this bill? No,' she told a reporter on July 2. 'I know in many parts of the country there are Americans that are not going to be advantaged by this bill.' Trump can point to working-class provisions such as the elimination of taxes on tip income and overtime pay, with limitations based on the type of work and the amount of income. Some workers will in fact benefit from those carve-outs. But tax analysts argue that favoring certain types of work in that manner violates the principle of 'horizontal equity,' the idea that similar incomes should be taxed in similar ways. To use the example of a restaurant, a waiter earning tip income would get a tax break that a cook paid hourly would not. That distorts the tax code, creates incentives to cheat, and generates legitimate grievances among the unlucky workers not gifted a tax break. The OBBBA is already unpopular, with 64% of Americans disapproving and just 35% approving, in one poll. The real vote will come in the 2026 midterm elections, when Americans will express whether they feel better off or worse off under unified Republican control of government. Getting Americans to like this law might be a more agonizing ideal than passing it. Rick Newman is a senior columnist for Yahoo Finance. Follow him on Bluesky and X: @rickjnewman. Click here for political news related to business and money policies that will shape tomorrow's stock prices.
