AI tutoring has emerged as one of the most accessible ways for physicians to participate in the development of large language models. Yet the term itself is often vague, inconsistently applied, and poorly explained. This Mozibox Research article clarifies what AI tutoring actually means for physicians, highlights companies doctors have genuinely worked with, and summarizes real-world feedback from personal and peer experience.
1) What is “AI tutoring” for physicians?
Despite the name, AI tutoring does not involve teaching people. Instead, physicians act as domain experts who help train, evaluate, and refine AI systems—most commonly large language models used in healthcare-adjacent contexts.
Typical physician AI tutoring work includes:
- Evaluating medical accuracy, safety, and completeness of AI-generated responses
- Comparing and ranking multiple model outputs based on clinical reasoning
- Writing or refining rubrics that define what “good” medical reasoning looks like
- Identifying edge cases, failure modes, and unsafe recommendations
- Providing structured feedback that improves model behavior over time
Importantly, this work is not patient care. There are no real patient interactions, and all content is abstracted and anonymized. What physicians contribute is clinical judgment, reasoning under uncertainty, and the ability to explain *why*something is correct—or unsafe.
As AI models have advanced, the work has shifted away from low-skill labeling toward expert-level reasoning and judgment, which is why physicians are increasingly sought after in this space.
2) Which companies are physicians actually working with?
Many platforms advertise AI training or annotation roles, but only a subset are consistently described by physicians as legitimate, well-run, and worth the time investment. Below are companies that Mozibox has either worked with directly or heard about repeatedly from physicians with firsthand experience.
Mercor
Mercor connects domain experts—including physicians—with AI labs and technology companies that need high-quality human evaluation and feedback. Physicians typically work on expert-level tasks such as medical reasoning evaluation, rubric-based grading, and structured review of model outputs.
Handshake
Handshake is best known as a large career network but has expanded into AI tutoring and expert evaluation by leveraging its existing talent infrastructure. Physicians are engaged for evaluation-style work that emphasizes expertise and judgment rather than volume alone.
Outlier
Outlier is an expert-contributor platform operated by Scale AI, a major AI data and infrastructure company. It focuses on sourcing human feedback, rankings, and evaluations to support large language model development.
Medcase
Medcase is a healthcare-focused platform that engages physicians for AI training, evaluation, and medical content-related work. Compared with more generalist AI marketplaces, Medcase positions itself as more clinically grounded.
micro1
Micro1 is an AI talent and human-data platform that recruits vetted experts for AI projects. Physician involvement appears to vary widely depending on project type and timing.
3) What has physician feedback and experience been like?
Mercor
Based on personal experience and extensive physician feedback, Mercor is widely viewed as one of the more physician-aligned platforms in the AI tutoring space.
- Initial compensation commonly starts around $130–$175/hour for specialty agnostic roles. (It may be higher for specialty specific roles such as radiology, which is paying up to $400/hour.)
- Some projects now use a base + bonus structure, where productivity and efficiency matter
- With experience, promotion, and strong quality metrics, physicians can reach $225–$275+/hour
- The expectation is a commitment of at least 10 hours per week while the project is active.
It is also worth noting that Mercor has become increasingly competitive.
Overall, physician experience with Mercor has been strongly positive, particularly for those who work efficiently and enjoy structured evaluation.
Handshake
There is first-hand experience with Handshake, including completion of a structured work trial, which was professional and well-run. In addition, multiple physicians who have worked with Handshake report positive experiences, particularly around communication, clarity of expectations, and respect for expertise.
Compensation appears to vary by background and seniority. I was offered $170/hour a few months ago. One physician reported being offered $250/hour recently. Opportunities may be more selective and less frequent, but overall sentiment has been favorable.
Outlier
Physician feedback on Outlier is mixed but nuanced.
- Base pay is often described as on the lower side
- However, bonus periods can significantly increase effective hourly rates
- Some physicians report earning more during high-demand bonus phases than on other platforms
- There is usually no minimal hour requirement
Outlier may be best suited for physicians who are flexible, productivity-driven, and comfortable with variability.
Medcase
Physician feedback on Medcase has been positive so far, based on reports from doctors who have worked on the platform. Onboarding is described as straightforward, with clear project expectations, detailed instructions, and accessible support.
Compensation has been reported as competitive and, in some cases, better than what Mercor advertises for similar work, and notably higher than some Micro1 offerings. One physician reported earning $140/hour for Family Medicine–related work. Medcase may appeal to physicians who value clarity, medical-specific projects, and predictable expectations.
Micro1
Physician experiences with Micro1 appear to be highly variable, based on second-hand reports from multiple doctors.
While there have been isolated accounts of short-term projects paying around $200/hour, more recent physician feedback suggests a much wider—and often lower—compensation range. Several physicians shared that although they completed onboarding, they were offered projects at rates under $50/hour and chose not to proceed, as the compensation did not align with physician-level expertise.
4) Practical considerations before doing AI tutoring work
Even on well-run platforms, physicians should enter with realistic expectations:
- This is supplemental income, not guaranteed work. Projects are episodic and availability fluctuates.
- Efficiency matters as much as expertise. Bonus-based models reward clarity and throughput.
- Quality control is strict. Expect audits, consistency checks, and occasional rework.
- 1099 income and taxes apply. Plan for quarterly estimates.
- This is not clinical care. Work is non-patient-facing but still relies on professional judgment.
5) Why physicians are increasingly in demand for AI tutoring
As language models mature, the bottleneck is no longer raw data volume—it is expert judgment, especially in domains where errors carry real-world consequences. Physicians bring nuanced reasoning, safety-first thinking, comfort with ambiguity, and the ability to articulate why an answer is correct, incomplete, or unsafe.
This is why compensation is diverging between generalist raters and true domain experts—and why physician involvement in AI tutoring is likely to persist.
Mozibox Research Takeaway
AI tutoring has evolved into a legitimate, expert-driven opportunity for physicians—but platform quality and compensation vary significantly. The most positive experiences tend to come from companies that treat physicians as domain experts, pay for judgment rather than speed alone, and provide clear expectations and feedback.
For physicians, AI tutoring can be intellectually rewarding and financially meaningful when approached as flexible, supplemental work aligned with individual goals and availability.
Disclosure: *This article reflects a combination of personal experience and peer-reported physician feedback. Compensation structures, project availability, and rates may change over time.