What AI teams are actually hiring for
Every skill below is counted across 34,217 live job postings on our board, of which 8,738 are data, AI or software roles. It is a count, not an opinion — and it is recomputed daily as the board changes.
The ranking deliberately leads with specialised skills rather than languages. Python appears in more postings than anything else here, and tells you nothing: everyone writes Python. What separates candidates is the domain work — post-training, inference optimisation, simulation, the infrastructure underneath a model.
Specialised skills
Ranked by how many data / AI / software postings ask for them.
| # | Skill | Category | Roles | Share | Relative demand |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Agents & tool use | AI systems | 422 | 4.8% | |
| 2 | Robotics & embodied AI | Applied domains | 312 | 3.6% | |
| 3 | AI infrastructure | AI systems | 270 | 3.1% | |
| 4 | Streaming & real-time data | Production ML | 182 | 2.1% | |
| 5 | RAG & retrieval | AI systems | 102 | 1.2% | |
| 6 | Model serving & MLOps | Production ML | 86 | 1.0% | |
| 7 | Simulation | Applied domains | 85 | 1.0% | |
| 8 | Multimodal & VLA | Model work | 68 | 0.8% | |
| 9 | Computer vision | Applied domains | 55 | 0.6% | |
| 10 | Fine-tuning | Model work | 46 | 0.5% | |
| 11 | Reinforcement learning | Model work | 44 | 0.5% | |
| 12 | NLP | Applied domains | 39 | 0.4% | |
| 13 | Experimentation & A/B testing | Production ML | 34 | 0.4% | |
| 14 | Evals & benchmarking | Model work | 33 | 0.4% | |
| 15 | Post-training (RLHF/DPO/SFT) | Model work | 33 | 0.4% | |
| 16 | CUDA & GPU kernels | AI systems | 33 | 0.4% | |
| 17 | AI safety & interpretability | Model work | 32 | 0.4% | |
| 18 | Inference optimisation | AI systems | 19 | 0.2% | |
| 19 | Recommenders & ranking | Applied domains | 17 | 0.2% | |
| 20 | Compilers (XLA/MLIR) | AI systems | 8 | 0.1% | |
| 21 | Pretraining | Model work | 7 | 0.1% | |
| 22 | Data curation & synthetic data | Model work | 7 | 0.1% | |
| 23 | Chip & silicon design | Applied domains | 6 | 0.1% | |
| 24 | Distributed training | AI systems | 5 | 0.1% |
Baseline tools
Table stakes rather than differentiators — shown for scale.
| # | Skill | Category | Roles | Share | Relative demand |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Python | Core tools | 1,326 | 15.2% | |
| 2 | SQL | Core tools | 537 | 6.1% | |
| 3 | AWS | Core tools | 406 | 4.6% | |
| 4 | Kubernetes | Core tools | 212 | 2.4% | |
| 5 | PyTorch | Core tools | 155 | 1.8% | |
| 6 | Spark | Core tools | 103 | 1.2% |
How this is measured, and where it's weak
Each posting's title, description and tags are scanned for the terms behind each skill. A company never counts towards its own name — Databricks has hundreds of open roles that all say “Databricks”, which measures who is hiring, not what the market wants.
The limit worth knowing: the source truncates every description at 603 characters, so what gets scanned is a posting's opening blurb, not its requirements list. Only about 18% of the data/AI/software postings name any specialised skill at all — the rest are cut off before they get there. So read these as relative demand between skills, not as “82% of teams don't want this”. Absolute counts are floors, and the more specialised the skill, the more it is understated.
A term also has to be written to be counted: a team can want post-training experience without using the phrase.
There is no pay data here on purpose. Fewer than 0.2% of these postings state a salary, and the upstream source carries no salary field, so any “highest paid skills” ranking built from them would be noise dressed up as a finding.
Last computed August 19, 2026.