4 ms·

MIT CSAIL alum here, the Media lab wasn't exactly a bastion of fundamental, more known for whizz-bang demos and media interviews etc. I remember reading somewhe

MIT CSAIL alum here, the Media lab wasn't exactly a bastion of fundamental, more known for whizz-bang demos and media interviews etc. I remember reading somewhere they were "all icing no cake" or the "MIT marketing agency". I hope this crisis refocuses it on breakthrough research,where its talent and resources could be very well spent.

akhilcacharya 7y ago
I agree, I hope more resources are spent at lower tier public institutions that also do important research.
mhalle 7y ago
Some of that was typical inter-departmental rivalry, even jealousy. The Media Lab had the big parties, the popular press attention, the visits by pop stars and celebs. And it had its audacious claims and characters. But mostly it had the money pouring in from sources untapped by other departments that functioned in the post-WWII MIT model of government funding. Personally, I'm grateful for full funding as a graduate students and the highest stipends on campus. But that's because the LCS and AI labs were doing different stuff from the Media Lab. They weren't comparable. Computation and networked devices were a tool towards something larger at the Media Lab. Yes, there were demos didn't work, or couldn't work. In Spatial Imaging, we couldn't fake physics, so we were somewhat immune. But with years of retrospect I look back fondly on some of those crazy "unworkable" ideas and see successful modern versions of them. Broadening one's vision is supposed to be part of academia; the Media Lab just approached it in a non-hardcore science MIT way. I also think the Media Lab changed CSAIL (when LCS and AI merged) much more than vice versa. Start with the Geary-designed building but look at the type of research and approach to funding. There's plenty of research at CSAIL that would have fit right at home at the ML in its old days, precisely because it is aimed at technology closer to end users and aligned with corporate sponsors and interests. Maybe that's because the world has changed; it's hard to interpret cause and effect. But the Media Lab was clearly a part of that. Disclaimer: left in 1997, not part of current controversy.

akhilcacharya 7y ago

I agree, I hope more resources are spent at lower tier public institutions that also do important research.

mhalle 7y ago

Some of that was typical inter-departmental rivalry, even jealousy. The Media Lab had the big parties, the popular press attention, the visits by pop stars and celebs. And it had its audacious claims and characters. But mostly it had the money pouring in from sources untapped by other departments that functioned in the post-WWII MIT model of government funding. Personally, I'm grateful for full funding as a graduate students and the highest stipends on campus. But that's because the LCS and AI labs were doing different stuff from the Media Lab. They weren't comparable. Computation and networked devices were a tool towards something larger at the Media Lab. Yes, there were demos didn't work, or couldn't work. In Spatial Imaging, we couldn't fake physics, so we were somewhat immune. But with years of retrospect I look back fondly on some of those crazy "unworkable" ideas and see successful modern versions of them. Broadening one's vision is supposed to be part of academia; the Media Lab just approached it in a non-hardcore science MIT way. I also think the Media Lab changed CSAIL (when LCS and AI merged) much more than vice versa. Start with the Geary-designed building but look at the type of research and approach to funding. There's plenty of research at CSAIL that would have fit right at home at the ML in its old days, precisely because it is aimed at technology closer to end users and aligned with corporate sponsors and interests. Maybe that's because the world has changed; it's hard to interpret cause and effect. But the Media Lab was clearly a part of that. Disclaimer: left in 1997, not part of current controversy.