Thread regarding Fidelity Investments layoffs

Fidelity's data scientists

What exactly do Fidelity's data scientists do on a daily basis? As far as I can tell, their only visible output is a stream of irrelevant papers and patents.The majority of these patents appear to be little more than clever linguistic exercises.
I've yet to see any substantive work come out of that team. Meanwhile, our AI unit is supposedly larger than Amazon's. With so many brilliant minds already building and open source cutting edge LLMs, what meaningful contributions can an internal group like this realistically make?

The skepticism regarding the internal team's value is compounded by the sheer scale of the global competition. While the organization maintains a significant footprint in AI and ML engineering, the focus on academic-style outputs like research papers and patents often feels disconnected from the practical realities of high-impact financial operations. In contrast, other major institutions are aggressively integrating data and AI to transform core business functions. For instance, McDonald's is leveraging its Enterprise Data, Analytics, and AI (EDAA) organization to develop capabilities for pricing, demand forecasting, and transaction modeling through their "Accelerating the Arches" strategy. Similarly, firms like JPMorganChase and BlackRock are focused on applied AI and AI data engineering to drive enterprise value.

If an internal group is to justify its existence alongside massive open-source efforts, it must pivot toward delivering scalable, high-impact data products that address specific business challenges such as financial forecasting models, data integrity controls, and advanced reporting rather than simply adding to a list of theoretical patents. Without a clear roadmap that bridges strategic financial objectives with digital transformation, the contributions of such a large unit remain difficult to quantify.


by
| 1 view | | 5 replies (last just now) | Reply
Post ID: @OP+1kvaw8txc

5 replies (most recent on top)

If you’re not smart enough to understand their output you shouldn’t be the one judging their performance or value to the company. It’s the same thing over and over again with these posts. You’ve chosen a specific role because there is ONE person who is near you holds this title and you’ve decided their value is zero. I wonder what your answer would be if I asked you to describe this persons appearance?

by
| | Reply
Post ID: @b9+1kvaw8txc

In fidelity getting a patent= payrise + promotion, equates to $20k in more pay at the year end, hence people will do anything to get it here, stamp over others on the way, empowered by A0's and SVP's.

by
| | Reply
Post ID: @af+1kvaw8txc

Real innovators are too busy actually building to waste time on the patent scam. Meanwhile, corporate "leaders" use the system to inflate their egos. They manufacture pathetic, loophole-ridden "inventions" just to farm clout and slap a fake innovation badge on their LinkedIn profiles. It isn’t progress; it’s a desperate, performative grift

by
| | Reply
Post ID: @a8+1kvaw8txc

The software patent system is a broken, fraudulent mess. It has devolved into a playground for legal maneuvering where companies we-ponize empty, jargon-heavy filings instead of real innovation. Because software patents are fundamentally unenforceable, they don't protect creators ,they just exist as worthless vanity trophies for corporations to collect. It’s time to scrap the entire program

by
| | Reply
Post ID: @a7+1kvaw8txc

Churning junk papers is a rational response to an irrational system, but it is a race to the bottom. The data science community is maturing; we are realizing that a paper is not a product launch. A true contribution should either shift our understanding of how models learn, or provide a rigorously verified, usable tool for practitioners. Until citation metrics are replaced by "reproducibility scores" or "impact-on-deployment" metrics, the churn will persist. In fact, the incentives that produce "junk data science papers" are directly descended from the incentives that produced the "software patent gold rush" of the late 1990s and 2000s.

Both systems suffer from the exact same pathology: measuring quantity over quality, combined with an examiner/reviewer bottleneck that cannot keep pace with the applicant's ability to generate combinatorial variations.
. Elite companies like Google, Amazon, and Microsoft realized 5–10 years ago that they were drowning in junk. They have shifted internal incentives:

Bonuses now trigger upon commercialization or successful litigation, not just filing.

They are aggressively publishing defensive publications (openly releasing the idea so nobody else can patent it) rather than wasting legal fees filing a patent for a feature they don't actually intend to use.

Promotion committees are starting to ask: "Was this patent ever implemented in a shipped product?" If the answer is no, the patent counts for zero.

But for the vast majority of mid-tier corporations, banks, and government contractors, the old game is still alive and well

by
| | Reply
Post ID: @a2+1kvaw8txc

Post a reply

: