9 ms·

I think this a challenge that seems pretty obvious as scientists working for for profit organizations that don’t have binding ethical frameworks aren’t really f

I think this a challenge that seems pretty obvious as scientists working for for profit organizations that don’t have binding ethical frameworks aren’t really free to pursue truth. Just like you wouldn’t expect an Exxon staff scientist to be free to publish a paper independent of Exxon. I think that people who want to properly practice science should avoid working for corporations. Academia and government aren’t completely free, but I think there would be laws broken if someone was fired over the contents of their peer reviewed paper.

SubiculumCode 5y ago
Agreed. We need to support increase funding and pay for public scientists. It is not even remotely competitive to the private market, and it is frustrating to know that I could earn substantially more if I left my academic research position.
- prepend 5y ago
  Actually the pay is pretty good considering $100k+ to do actual science. I think the issue is these are non-scientist roles at Google and whatnot that pay more because they are paying scientists to not be scientists. It’s like the highest pay for a geologist is in government unless you want to stop doing science and work for oil.
  - SubiculumCode 5y ago
    It takes 5-7 years to get your PhD, 3-5 years as a postdoc, then starting pay is usually 85-90, but set to grow fairly quickly but to out at 145+benefits. That extra decade in "training" is a lot of missed economic opportunity
    - prepend 5y ago
      Yes, certainly. But if you just want economic opportunity then science isn’t for you. Start driving trucks at 18 and you’ll have more money with all those extra years of income. But $100k+ is decent compensation (And way above the median) to be able to work in one’s area of interest. I think being able to do science while still having a good salary is a big positive in life. But yes, there are many other ways to make more money.
21723 5y ago
This. And if an AGI is built (unlikely in the next 100 years, IMO) by a for-profit corporation, we are dangerously, dangerously fucked.
- pas 5y ago
  100 years is a realllllly long time. Things that happened since 1922: atomic bomb, space program, detection of gravitational waves, imaging of a black hole('s accretion disk), gene editing, all of the computer era.
- chii 5y ago
  a profit motive is at least very understandable, and somewhat controllable. I'd rather a for-profit motive, than some other non-financial motive for building AGI. Better the devil you know.

SubiculumCode 5y ago

Agreed. We need to support increase funding and pay for public scientists. It is not even remotely competitive to the private market, and it is frustrating to know that I could earn substantially more if I left my academic research position.

prepend 5y ago
Actually the pay is pretty good considering $100k+ to do actual science. I think the issue is these are non-scientist roles at Google and whatnot that pay more because they are paying scientists to not be scientists. It’s like the highest pay for a geologist is in government unless you want to stop doing science and work for oil.
- SubiculumCode 5y ago
  It takes 5-7 years to get your PhD, 3-5 years as a postdoc, then starting pay is usually 85-90, but set to grow fairly quickly but to out at 145+benefits. That extra decade in "training" is a lot of missed economic opportunity
  - prepend 5y ago
    Yes, certainly. But if you just want economic opportunity then science isn’t for you. Start driving trucks at 18 and you’ll have more money with all those extra years of income. But $100k+ is decent compensation (And way above the median) to be able to work in one’s area of interest. I think being able to do science while still having a good salary is a big positive in life. But yes, there are many other ways to make more money.

21723 5y ago

This. And if an AGI is built (unlikely in the next 100 years, IMO) by a for-profit corporation, we are dangerously, dangerously fucked.

pas 5y ago
100 years is a realllllly long time. Things that happened since 1922: atomic bomb, space program, detection of gravitational waves, imaging of a black hole('s accretion disk), gene editing, all of the computer era.
chii 5y ago
a profit motive is at least very understandable, and somewhat controllable. I'd rather a for-profit motive, than some other non-financial motive for building AGI. Better the devil you know.