4 ms·

I've been looking for someone with this perspective. Do you think it is just AI and ML? Do you feel the same way about data scientists, data analyst (not actuar

I've been looking for someone with this perspective. Do you think it is just AI and ML? Do you feel the same way about data scientists, data analyst (not actuary,statisticians,mathematicians, etc)? What other domains do you recommend instead?

timr 10y ago
If you are new, I recommend that you pick a discipline with long-term proven value, and go as deep as you can into it. If you have a bit more experience, pick a second discipline, and define yourself as the specialist in X-meets-Y. Just don't be a magpie: make a choice, and stick to it. This is the hard part, because it will be excruciatingly tempting to follow all of the other magpies to the new field when they leave. As for your other question: no, it isn't just AI. Right now, the "javascript engineer", "mobile developer" and "data scientist" are all magical creatures of the Unicorn Land. I can't predict what comes next, but I can confidently predict that none of these things will be as hot in a decade, because they're all just the latest variations on broader themes. That said, there are often actual disciplines beneath these trends. For example, "data science" is practically the definition of a magpie fad: science has always depended upon data, so putting "data" in front of the term is an indication of (fairly thoughtless) trend-chasing. But actuaries, analysts, scientists and statisticians have been around for decades, and will continue to exist long after the last 20-something "senior data scientist" has closed his Jupyter notebook for good. Specialize in those things, instead, and call yourself whatever goofy thing you need to say on a resume to get hired. Any reasonably intelligent kid can pick up a data analysis tool in months, but it still takes decades for that kid to become an expert statistician. Prefer the latter.
- uola 10y ago
  While they might not realized, many programmers will already specialized in software development. Meaning their career will take them to technical lead, project manager, software architect etc. and not "number crunching".
  - timr 10y ago
    That can be a valid specialization, but the bar is higher than most people realize. If you're going to be a specialist in software development, it isn't enough to merely work at a company or three and advance through the ranks. You have to become so skilled at the process of software creation that your knowledge is recognized as universally relevant. You have to be in the top percentile(s) of people who do what you do. It's the difference between being a middle manager at a tech company and being, say, Rob Pike or Jeff Dean. (Maybe that bar is set a bit too high, but hopefully you get the idea.)
- kyllo 10y ago
  Most businesses would have no clue what to do with an expert statistician, though. An analyst with a balanced combination of programming and stats skills and business domain knowledge will always, always be able to find work, regardless of whatever the latest fad is.

timr 10y ago

If you are new, I recommend that you pick a discipline with long-term proven value, and go as deep as you can into it. If you have a bit more experience, pick a second discipline, and define yourself as the specialist in X-meets-Y. Just don't be a magpie: make a choice, and stick to it. This is the hard part, because it will be excruciatingly tempting to follow all of the other magpies to the new field when they leave. As for your other question: no, it isn't just AI. Right now, the "javascript engineer", "mobile developer" and "data scientist" are all magical creatures of the Unicorn Land. I can't predict what comes next, but I can confidently predict that none of these things will be as hot in a decade, because they're all just the latest variations on broader themes. That said, there are often actual disciplines beneath these trends. For example, "data science" is practically the definition of a magpie fad: science has always depended upon data, so putting "data" in front of the term is an indication of (fairly thoughtless) trend-chasing. But actuaries, analysts, scientists and statisticians have been around for decades, and will continue to exist long after the last 20-something "senior data scientist" has closed his Jupyter notebook for good. Specialize in those things, instead, and call yourself whatever goofy thing you need to say on a resume to get hired. Any reasonably intelligent kid can pick up a data analysis tool in months, but it still takes decades for that kid to become an expert statistician. Prefer the latter.

uola 10y ago
While they might not realized, many programmers will already specialized in software development. Meaning their career will take them to technical lead, project manager, software architect etc. and not "number crunching".
- timr 10y ago
  That can be a valid specialization, but the bar is higher than most people realize. If you're going to be a specialist in software development, it isn't enough to merely work at a company or three and advance through the ranks. You have to become so skilled at the process of software creation that your knowledge is recognized as universally relevant. You have to be in the top percentile(s) of people who do what you do. It's the difference between being a middle manager at a tech company and being, say, Rob Pike or Jeff Dean. (Maybe that bar is set a bit too high, but hopefully you get the idea.)
kyllo 10y ago
Most businesses would have no clue what to do with an expert statistician, though. An analyst with a balanced combination of programming and stats skills and business domain knowledge will always, always be able to find work, regardless of whatever the latest fad is.