Senior Software Engineer, AI Training - United States

G2i Inc.; Nashville (TN); Remote; USD 138,000 - 276,000; Full time

Job summary

G2i Inc. seeks a Senior Software Engineer, AI Training to evaluate how AI coding agents behave in real-world scenarios. This is not production coding; you will assess usefulness, reasoning, and engineering judgment, writing detailed feedback.

The role emphasizes taste over syntax and focuses on how the model would advise an experienced developer. You should be hands-on with at least one of Codex, Claude Code, or Cursor, and you must communicate clearly in English (written and spoken).

Qualifications

• Senior/Staff level software engineer with AI tool experience.
• Strong written and spoken English (B2+).
• Ability to give clear, opinionated feedback without executing code.

Responsibilities

• Evaluate AI-generated coding interactions end to end.
• Judge usefulness, high-level correctness and engineering judgment.
• Assess explanations and reasoning, not just the code.
• Provide clear, written feedback on what worked, what didn’t, and what felt off.

Skills

Engineering judgment

English proficiency

Feedback writing

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

You will assess how AI coding agents behave in real-world scenarios, focusing on:

• 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"

• We're looking for engineers who can answer questions like:
• 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 seatProcess: one take-home evaluation exercise with a recorded Loom walkthrough. No interview