3 ms·
More money is always good for researchers. At the end of the day, being paid more is the free market doing resource allocation when basic research in other fiel
by sansnomme 7y ago
More money is always good for researchers. At the end of the day, being paid more is the free market doing resource allocation when basic research in other fields isn't being appropriately subsidized.
- mr_overalls 7y agoIn classical economic theory, one pre-condition for efficient market allocation of resources is accurate information providing a basis for rational levels of investment. If AI is subject to crazes, with investors as a whole drastically overestimating its potential, then it's certainly possible to over-allocate capital (human and otherwise) to it in the hopes of a payoff. Consider the Dutch tulip mania of the 1630s. Imagine if it had lasted a bit longer, long enough for promising scientists and scholars of every type to be trained solely to optimize the growth of tulips. This allocation of capital would provide a benefit to tulip investors for as long as the craze lasted, but would prove to be a detriment to society once the craze ended. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tulip_mania https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tulip_mania
- sansnomme 7y agoTo be fair, the connectionist variety of ML is extremely compatible with the majority of the hard sciences (Linear Alg, Calculus, not really much CS/discrete math if you think about it). A physics/rigorous CogSci background prepares you just as well as CS for most of the interesting AI stuff. The fact that AI and CS in general has such a low barrier of entry is something to be celebrated. Be glad that our domain do not suffer from the gatekeeping in Medicine and Law.