Senior Software Engineer, AI Training - United States

G2i Inc.; Fort Worth (TX); Remote; USD 138,000 - 276,000; Full time

Job summary

G2i Inc. is seeking a Senior Software Engineer, AI Training, for an ongoing contract role with remote worldwide availability. You will assess AI-generated coding interactions for quality, usefulness, and engineering judgment, rather than writing production code.

Ideal candidates have senior-level experience and hands-on work with OpenAI Codex, Claude Code, or Cursor, plus excellent written English. Projects run 10-20 hrs/week with pay between $100 and $200 per hour.

Qualifications

• Senior/Staff level software engineer with experience in evaluating AI-assisted coding.
• Excellent written and spoken English (B2 or above) for feedback and video explanations.
• Deep familiarity with modern AI-assisted dev workflows and evaluation practices.

Responsibilities

• Evaluate AI-generated coding interactions end to end, not writing production code.
• Judge usefulness, accuracy, and engineering judgment of outputs.
• Assess explanations and reasoning quality, not just code correctness.
• Provide clear, opinionated written feedback on strengths and gaps.

Skills

Senior/Staff engineer

English communication

AI workflows

Tools

OpenAI Codex

Claude Code

Cursor

Job description

Senior Software Engineer, AI Training - United States

Open Contract 100.00-200.00 USD per hour as stated in the posting

Contract | Remote, worldwide | $100-$200/hour depending on experience and location | 10-20 hrs/week

Please note that eligibility may vary depending on your location, as some regions may not be supported by the client.

Check out this Loom video for more details: https://www.loom.com/share/b0d1b0bf24c44ae8b95dca84b9db60e5

We're looking for highly experienced software engineer (SR+) to help evaluate the quality of interactions with modern coding agents such as OpenAI Codex and Claude Code.

This is not a traditional engineering role. You won't be writing production code. You'll be evaluating something harder: whether the model thinks like a great engineer.

What this role actually is

• Whether the response makes sense


• Whether the preamble and reasoning are useful


• Whether the output reflects strong engineering judgment


• Whether the interaction feels right to an experienced developer

This role is about engineering taste. Syntax correctness is the easy part.

What you'll be doing

• Evaluate AI-generated coding interactions end to end


• Judge whether outputs are useful, correct at a high level, and aligned with how a strong engineer would think


• Assess the quality of explanations and reasoning, not just the code


• Distinguish between levels of response quality (what makes something a 2 vs a 4)


• Give clear, opinionated feedback in writing on what worked, what didn't, and what felt off or misleading


• Help define what great looks like when working with tools like Cursor, Codex and Claude Code

What we mean by \"taste\"

• Does this feel like something a strong engineer would actually say?


• Is this explanation helpful, or just technically correct?


• Is the model guiding the user well, or just dumping output?


• Would this interaction build or erode trust?

You should be comfortable making subjective but rigorous judgments, and explaining them clearly.

Who you are

• Senior, Staff or Principal-level engineer (or equivalent experience)


• Hands-on experience with at least one of OpenAI Codex, Claude Code or Cursor


• Deep familiarity with modern AI-assisted dev workflows


• Able to evaluate code without executing it or reviewing every line


• Strong written and spoken English (B2 or above). You'll be writing detailed feedback and recording short video explanations, so this is a hard requirement


• Comfortable giving direct, opinionated feedback


• High bar for what good engineering looks like

Nice to have

• Prior exposure to prompt design or evaluation workflows


• Experience mentoring senior engineers or defining engineering standards

Rate

• $100-$200/hour depending on experience and location

Duration

• Ongoing. Projects run from about two weeks to a few months each, and we offer new ones to evaluators who do well

Start

• As soon as you clear the take-home and a project has an open seat

Process

• One take-home evaluation exercise with a recorded Loom walkthrough. No interview