10 ms·

> during the first year of grad school I realized that AI, as practiced at the time, was a hoax. I had a similar realization during grad school about a lot of

> during the first year of grad school I realized that AI, as practiced at the time, was a hoax. I had a similar realization during grad school about a lot of the popular topics at the time (early 2000s). I even used to call them "the hoaxes of computer science". Things like grid computing or formal methods of software engineering had a lot of resources behind them, but nobody was able to use the results. Instead, very different formats of these ideas are what took root: cloud computing and advanced type systems. > the low end eats the high end: that it's good to be the "entry level" option, even though that will be less prestigious, because if you're not, someone else will be, and will squash you against the ceiling. I wish every grad student had been forced to memorize this statement. Build something useable, not clever.

hinkley 6y ago
An alternative that seems to work is chasing grants, or defense contracts. But then the choice becomes "build something usable, or only work for someone who hired a 'grant writer' that is making 125-250% of your salary"
- alisonkisk 6y ago
  I don't have the skill to be a grant writer, so I don't begrudge their pay. Grant writer isn't a job you get through nepotism.
  - hinkley 6y ago
    I knew someone who worked at a defense research group. Their head grant writer was pulling in 3x of the senior developers because he tried to quit and they had to make an offer he couldn't pass up. Usually you don't counter-offer at all, and you don't throw money at someone like that unless there's a damned good reason.
zozbot234 6y ago
> Things like grid computing or formal methods of software engineering had a lot of resources behind them, but nobody was able to use the results. Instead, very different formats of these ideas are what took root: cloud computing and advanced type systems. The clearest example of this dynamic is probably the "Fifth Generation Computing Systems" initiative, which was described as a "hoax" for a long time but managed to characterize quite closely the way computing would ultimately be done in the 2010s and will probably be done in the 2020s. Though that particular initiative had some deeply weird focus on using Prolog-derived query languages for everything, which ultimely failed because that whole paradigm lacked compositionality and was not feasibly extensible to concurrent/parallel compute (which was obviously a big focus of FGCS). Functional programming has proven a lot more influential overall.
- ngcc_hk 6y ago
  And target to play go ... well at least that objective is done.
- selimthegrim 6y ago
  paging Mt Scott Locklin for the inevitable eruption
sdevonoes 6y ago
Funny because I do have the same feeling these days: that ML is a hoax. Even funnier: I do have a master's degree in ML.
- timr 6y ago
  It isn't a hoax, but the OP is exactly right: if it were more usable, people would see it for what it is, and not for what the silly media narrative makes it sounds like. As long as your technology is only usable by a high priesthood, you can make it look like magic.
  - nerdponx 6y ago
    Why do people feel entitled to "usable" ML at all? In the last 5 years, we have made incomprehensibly huge improvements in power and usability. It's an active field, and improvements are still coming at a steady pace. We have already revolutionized search, natural language processing & machine translation, image/audio/video processing, robotics, game AI, and advertising (for better or worse). And on top of all this, we have significantly reduced the "time to first useful model", and we have significantly lowered the math and programming requirements for building and implementing models. And now we have transfer learning, which lets any old Joe Schmo benefit from massive computing power and datasets to build small on-device models that blow away SOTA accuracy from even a few years ago. Oh, and the ML tooling ecosystem has become a substantial source of innovation in programming language design, "developer UX", and "data ops". What the fuck more do you want? The people who seem the most upset that ML isn't magic seem to be the most confused about what ML even is and does.
    - timr 6y ago
      > Why do people feel entitled to "usable" ML at all? Yeah, people are annoying, with their demands to use software themselves. It would be much easier for everyone if computers were controlled by an elite group of engineers who could hide the complexity from the rest of us. Perhaps they could wear labcoats. > What the fuck more do you want? If I knew the answer to that, life would be a lot simpler.
dekhn 6y ago
I don't agree about grid computing. Many scientists got work done with it on aggregations of clusters. LIGO used pyGlobus to transfer large amounts of scientific data.
- earthscienceman 6y ago
  Absolutely. Things that were commercial failures were often huge successes in the scientific community. If you don't see why something is popular it's probably not because it's useless, it's probably because you aren't the intended user. Which is fine but a very different conclusion.
- jacquesm 6y ago
  And the early beowulf cluster stuff was definitely breaking new ground, and is the direct ancestor of the most powerful supercomputers in the world right now.
- mateo411 6y ago
  There were many cool things about grid computing and I think they got some of the abstractions right. However, there was a larger gap in what was actually possible and what people claimed was possible. You'll see this gap in other software. However, if you compare the difference to what AWS says it can do to what it actually does, that's a pretty big difference. The quality of the systems developed by a large company with of resources is going to be much better than a collaboration of different scientists and software engineering groups at different national labs and universities.
dsr_ 6y ago
Rather than an outright hoax, I like the term "fad". There are fads in technology, some of which are directly inspired by what has become possible and some of which are mutations of of other ideas. Some fads have more worth or more longevity than others -- in the world of clothing, denim jeans are now a foundation on which to build; I might consider object-oriented language features to be similar.
- DataWorker 6y ago
  Like stocks, you can buy ideas “low” and sell them “high.” Some ideas are cyclical too, AI, mainframes/cloud, etc... And this extends beyond tech for instance “equity” is currently hot but that may be short lived which is unfortunate.
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
sjg007 6y ago
> the low end eats the high end: that it's good to be the "entry level" option, even though that will be less prestigious, because if you're not, someone else will be, and will squash you against the ceiling. This happens with jobs too.. especially software jobs. Nobody wants to do software QA, want to know how to get a software engineering job when the market is tight or otherwise inaccessible... software QA.
- vinger 6y ago
  If developer numbers go down the need for QA reduces. QA jobs are a proxy for developer roles.
- Afton 6y ago
  Incidentally, I think being in QA and being a good engineer is a recipe for a very good career. A surprising number of QA software developers are... just not very good developers. Working with a good developer that just happens to specialize in QA is an amazing experience.
  - whatshisface 6y ago
    Would that good-engineer QA specialist have a good career in terms of appreciation and remuneration, or merely a good career in terms of being the least likely to get laid off, and providing a lot of value to the company?
    - Afton 6y ago
      Well, both, but they are fairly decoupled, just like for 'regular' software developers. Pay is based on willingness to move (and get that sweet, sweet signing bonus), and willingness to negotiate. Essentially: If you are an amazing engineer, you will likely do well everywhere. If you are a 'good' engineer, and you want to stand out, go into QA engineering where you will be relatively better than a lot of people.
visarga 6y ago
> the hoaxes of computer science Without the benefit of hindsight we can't tell which of these building blocks will become the next paradigm. I think your expectation that progress should be a direct line where every step gets you closer is mistaken. It's often guided by a very subjective feeling of interesting-ness which cannot be formalized.
- dwd 6y ago
  Sounds a lot like evolution. Lots of random trying things out in various places and times until one of them sticks.
  - visarga 6y ago
    Yes, it's exactly what I was getting at. It's memetic evolution, it is extreme openendedness at work. Planning is only good when you get close to the solution and you can see the path ahead.

hinkley 6y ago

An alternative that seems to work is chasing grants, or defense contracts. But then the choice becomes "build something usable, or only work for someone who hired a 'grant writer' that is making 125-250% of your salary"

alisonkisk 6y ago
I don't have the skill to be a grant writer, so I don't begrudge their pay. Grant writer isn't a job you get through nepotism.
- hinkley 6y ago
  I knew someone who worked at a defense research group. Their head grant writer was pulling in 3x of the senior developers because he tried to quit and they had to make an offer he couldn't pass up. Usually you don't counter-offer at all, and you don't throw money at someone like that unless there's a damned good reason.

zozbot234 6y ago

> Things like grid computing or formal methods of software engineering had a lot of resources behind them, but nobody was able to use the results. Instead, very different formats of these ideas are what took root: cloud computing and advanced type systems. The clearest example of this dynamic is probably the "Fifth Generation Computing Systems" initiative, which was described as a "hoax" for a long time but managed to characterize quite closely the way computing would ultimately be done in the 2010s and will probably be done in the 2020s. Though that particular initiative had some deeply weird focus on using Prolog-derived query languages for everything, which ultimely failed because that whole paradigm lacked compositionality and was not feasibly extensible to concurrent/parallel compute (which was obviously a big focus of FGCS). Functional programming has proven a lot more influential overall.

ngcc_hk 6y ago
And target to play go ... well at least that objective is done.
selimthegrim 6y ago
paging Mt Scott Locklin for the inevitable eruption

sdevonoes 6y ago

Funny because I do have the same feeling these days: that ML is a hoax. Even funnier: I do have a master's degree in ML.

timr 6y ago
It isn't a hoax, but the OP is exactly right: if it were more usable, people would see it for what it is, and not for what the silly media narrative makes it sounds like. As long as your technology is only usable by a high priesthood, you can make it look like magic.
- nerdponx 6y ago
  Why do people feel entitled to "usable" ML at all? In the last 5 years, we have made incomprehensibly huge improvements in power and usability. It's an active field, and improvements are still coming at a steady pace. We have already revolutionized search, natural language processing & machine translation, image/audio/video processing, robotics, game AI, and advertising (for better or worse). And on top of all this, we have significantly reduced the "time to first useful model", and we have significantly lowered the math and programming requirements for building and implementing models. And now we have transfer learning, which lets any old Joe Schmo benefit from massive computing power and datasets to build small on-device models that blow away SOTA accuracy from even a few years ago. Oh, and the ML tooling ecosystem has become a substantial source of innovation in programming language design, "developer UX", and "data ops". What the fuck more do you want? The people who seem the most upset that ML isn't magic seem to be the most confused about what ML even is and does.
  - timr 6y ago
    > Why do people feel entitled to "usable" ML at all? Yeah, people are annoying, with their demands to use software themselves. It would be much easier for everyone if computers were controlled by an elite group of engineers who could hide the complexity from the rest of us. Perhaps they could wear labcoats. > What the fuck more do you want? If I knew the answer to that, life would be a lot simpler.

dekhn 6y ago

I don't agree about grid computing. Many scientists got work done with it on aggregations of clusters. LIGO used pyGlobus to transfer large amounts of scientific data.

earthscienceman 6y ago
Absolutely. Things that were commercial failures were often huge successes in the scientific community. If you don't see why something is popular it's probably not because it's useless, it's probably because you aren't the intended user. Which is fine but a very different conclusion.
jacquesm 6y ago
And the early beowulf cluster stuff was definitely breaking new ground, and is the direct ancestor of the most powerful supercomputers in the world right now.
mateo411 6y ago
There were many cool things about grid computing and I think they got some of the abstractions right. However, there was a larger gap in what was actually possible and what people claimed was possible. You'll see this gap in other software. However, if you compare the difference to what AWS says it can do to what it actually does, that's a pretty big difference. The quality of the systems developed by a large company with of resources is going to be much better than a collaboration of different scientists and software engineering groups at different national labs and universities.

dsr_ 6y ago

Rather than an outright hoax, I like the term "fad". There are fads in technology, some of which are directly inspired by what has become possible and some of which are mutations of of other ideas. Some fads have more worth or more longevity than others -- in the world of clothing, denim jeans are now a foundation on which to build; I might consider object-oriented language features to be similar.

DataWorker 6y ago
Like stocks, you can buy ideas “low” and sell them “high.” Some ideas are cyclical too, AI, mainframes/cloud, etc... And this extends beyond tech for instance “equity” is currently hot but that may be short lived which is unfortunate.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]

sjg007 6y ago

> the low end eats the high end: that it's good to be the "entry level" option, even though that will be less prestigious, because if you're not, someone else will be, and will squash you against the ceiling. This happens with jobs too.. especially software jobs. Nobody wants to do software QA, want to know how to get a software engineering job when the market is tight or otherwise inaccessible... software QA.

vinger 6y ago
If developer numbers go down the need for QA reduces. QA jobs are a proxy for developer roles.
Afton 6y ago
Incidentally, I think being in QA and being a good engineer is a recipe for a very good career. A surprising number of QA software developers are... just not very good developers. Working with a good developer that just happens to specialize in QA is an amazing experience.
- whatshisface 6y ago
  Would that good-engineer QA specialist have a good career in terms of appreciation and remuneration, or merely a good career in terms of being the least likely to get laid off, and providing a lot of value to the company?
  - Afton 6y ago
    Well, both, but they are fairly decoupled, just like for 'regular' software developers. Pay is based on willingness to move (and get that sweet, sweet signing bonus), and willingness to negotiate. Essentially: If you are an amazing engineer, you will likely do well everywhere. If you are a 'good' engineer, and you want to stand out, go into QA engineering where you will be relatively better than a lot of people.

visarga 6y ago

> the hoaxes of computer science Without the benefit of hindsight we can't tell which of these building blocks will become the next paradigm. I think your expectation that progress should be a direct line where every step gets you closer is mistaken. It's often guided by a very subjective feeling of interesting-ness which cannot be formalized.

dwd 6y ago
Sounds a lot like evolution. Lots of random trying things out in various places and times until one of them sticks.
- visarga 6y ago
  Yes, it's exactly what I was getting at. It's memetic evolution, it is extreme openendedness at work. Planning is only good when you get close to the solution and you can see the path ahead.