Technical Problem Author (Multi-Domain)

$60–110/hrrate as listed

Write and grade advanced engineering problems — in aerodynamics, materials, CAD/mechanical design, circuits, or mechanical engineering — that are used to train and test frontier AI models. Work is remote, output-based, and paid per accepted task, with observed rates in the $80–110/hr equivalent range.

Summary, eligibility guidance and screening preparation are prepared by Sidequest from the platform's posting. Check the source listing before applying.

What the work involves

You author technical problems hard enough that a strong model gets them wrong, then you defend why your answer is right. A typical task starts with a problem statement in your specialty — a compressible-flow scenario, a fatigue-life estimate, a tolerance stack-up, an amplifier stability question — written with unambiguous givens, stated assumptions, and a reference solution you can walk through step by step. You then run the problem against model outputs and grade them: not just correct/incorrect, but where the reasoning broke, whether the error was conceptual or arithmetic, and whether your own statement left room for a defensible alternative reading.

A second stream of work is pure evaluation — reviewing AI-generated technical responses others have collected and scoring them for correctness, engineering relevance, and whether the stated approach would actually survive contact with a real design review. Expect to write structured rationales, flag ambiguous conditions in existing items, and occasionally record short verbal explanations. Reviewers send items back; rework is part of the job and the strongest contributors treat a rejection as a spec problem rather than a taste dispute.

What the platform screens for

micro1 runs an AI-led interview before any human sees your file. It probes for verifiable specifics — what you actually designed, analyzed, or tested, with numbers — and then follows up inside your answer to see whether the depth holds. Prior AI experience is explicitly not required; demonstrated authoring credentials are what separate candidates. Olympiad or competition problem committees, PE/FE or licensure item writing, qualifying-exam authorship, and standards-committee service all read strongly. So does an MS/PhD in the discipline, or 8+ years of industry practice (5+ for CAD/mechanical design). English fluency is assessed directly, in both writing and speech.

Logistics

Fully remote, asynchronous, contractor engagement — no fixed shifts.
Output-based pay: you are paid per task that meets spec, so effective hourly depends on your speed and rework rate. The $80–110/hr band reflects observed reported rates, not a guarantee.
A weekly minimum task submission applies; confirm the exact number before accepting.
Hiring moves fast — roles often fill within 48 hours, and first tasks are expected within 24–48 hours of onboarding.
Most contributors run this alongside a primary role at roughly 10–20 hours a week.

What they look for

AutoCAD
Aerodynamics
Mechanical Engineering

Before you apply

Would you pass this screen?

Drawn from what this listing actually requires. Answered in your browser — nothing is sent to us, and we do not store your answers.

Do you hold an MS or PhD in an engineering discipline (Aerodynamics, Materials Science, CAD/Mechanical Design, Circuit Design, or Mechanical Engineering), or do you have 8+ years of professional experience in Aerodynamics/Circuit Design/Mechanical Engineering (or 5+ years in CAD/Mechanical Design)?
Advanced Degree or Industry Experience · required
Do you have at least 5 years of hands-on technical experience in your engineering domain, including work such as mechanical design, aerodynamic analysis, materials selection, or circuit/system development?
Hands-On Technical Experience · required
Have you authored or contributed technical problems in any of these contexts: olympiad or academic competition committees, licensure exam item writing, academic qualifying-exam authorship, standards committee roles, or technical competition leadership?
Problem Authoring Track Record · required
Do you have professional-level English proficiency, sufficient to write clear technical explanations and participate in remote collaboration with fluency?
Professional English Proficiency · required
Are you familiar with industry-standard engineering tools relevant to your specialty, such as AutoCAD, CAD suites, CFD/FEA software, EDA tools, or relevant lab equipment, with hands-on experience using at least one?
Industry-Standard Tools · preferred
Do you have prior experience working independently and remotely, delivering high-quality technical work on deadlines without direct in-person oversight?
Remote Work Experience · preferred

0 of 6 answered

Included with this listing

Interview prep — 11 questions

Matched to what this platform's screening actually measures. Answer each out loud in 60–90 seconds: claim → concrete example → implication.

What it tests: Whether you can articulate what distinguishes a well-designed problem from a surface-level one, and whether you understand how problem clarity and constraint specification drive learning outcomes.
A strong answer: Name a specific problem (olympiad, exam, competition, or publication context), then explain what made it test real engineering judgment—not just formula memorization. The answer should touch on how you balanced clarity with appropriate difficulty, and how the problem's constraints forced the solver to reason through tradeoffs or failure modes.
Where people lose it: Describing a problem you solved rather than one you authored, or failing to explain what the problem was actually testing—just saying it was 'hard' or 'comprehensive' without grounding.