3 ms·

Of course, hustler types don't look at a career in science and think "how can I game this system" -probably not even in a high dollar field like ML (FWIIW I am

Of course, hustler types don't look at a career in science and think "how can I game this system" -probably not even in a high dollar field like ML (FWIIW I am OP). But the reality is the present incentive system in the "sciences" is such that bullshit, hustling, trend following, sucking up to the associate dean, marketing chops and chasing fashion (to say nothing of politics and witch hunts) are rewarded, and honest diligent research isn't. This is one of the reasons actual breakthroughs (such as deep learning) are incredibly rare in the modern day, compared to, say, the way stuff worked in the 50s.

godelski 7y ago
> This is one of the reasons actual breakthroughs (such as deep learning) are incredibly rare in the modern day, compared to, say, the way stuff worked in the 50s. I'd argue that the more we learn the harder it is to find major breakthroughs. Looking at Math and Physics as a model, I think this is clear, that major breakthroughs become more sparse as time passes. Luckily we have more eyes looking at things now, which helps a lot.
- scottlocklin 7y ago
  There are so many huge things to know about in physics ... so many gaping lacunae, I can't accept this. Sure nobody's thinking about them, instead preferring to fool around with non falsifiable piffle like noodle theory and "quantum information theory:" that's part of the problem. Similarly in technology, there is much to do, but tinkering with hardware, craftsmanship; the things that worked in industrial labs in the old days: they're not done any more. Even making some simple piece of junk aluminum part, people waste time fooling around with solid designer and FEA instead of just handing a piece of graph paper to a former Navy machinist. There are entire books written in the post WW-2 era about fast development when people actually used to develop things quickly. Nobody does it. Well, the Russians and Chinese do, but they also develop big technology a lot faster than we do in the west. I have no idea what's wrong with machine learning research; probably gratuitous abuse of grad students, people jumping after fashion, and lately brain drain.

godelski 7y ago

> This is one of the reasons actual breakthroughs (such as deep learning) are incredibly rare in the modern day, compared to, say, the way stuff worked in the 50s. I'd argue that the more we learn the harder it is to find major breakthroughs. Looking at Math and Physics as a model, I think this is clear, that major breakthroughs become more sparse as time passes. Luckily we have more eyes looking at things now, which helps a lot.

scottlocklin 7y ago
There are so many huge things to know about in physics ... so many gaping lacunae, I can't accept this. Sure nobody's thinking about them, instead preferring to fool around with non falsifiable piffle like noodle theory and "quantum information theory:" that's part of the problem. Similarly in technology, there is much to do, but tinkering with hardware, craftsmanship; the things that worked in industrial labs in the old days: they're not done any more. Even making some simple piece of junk aluminum part, people waste time fooling around with solid designer and FEA instead of just handing a piece of graph paper to a former Navy machinist. There are entire books written in the post WW-2 era about fast development when people actually used to develop things quickly. Nobody does it. Well, the Russians and Chinese do, but they also develop big technology a lot faster than we do in the west. I have no idea what's wrong with machine learning research; probably gratuitous abuse of grad students, people jumping after fashion, and lately brain drain.