4 ms·

As someone who is early in the process of considering Ph.D. programs, I'd be interested if you could expound on that. Also, any schools seem like the opposite o

As someone who is early in the process of considering Ph.D. programs, I'd be interested if you could expound on that. Also, any schools seem like the opposite of zombie? (This question also goes out to anyone else that has something to add.)

asciilifeform 17y ago
AFAIK the entire field is dead: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AI_winter http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AI_winter There are various explanations as to the cause of death: the end of the Cold War; the humbling of the mega-monopolies which funded "blue sky" research (mainly AT&T); a general loss of faith resulting from a decades-long lack of progress. Take your pick. In fact, the entire field of computer science has been stagnant for a while, shiny gadgets to please people with 5-minute attention spans notwithstanding: http://www.eng.uwaterloo.ca/~ejones/writing/systemsresearch.html http://www.eng.uwaterloo.ca/~ejones/writing/systemsresearch.... Bureaucrats have replaced thinkers: http://unqualified-reservations.blogspot.com/2007/08/whats-wrong-with-cs-research.html http://unqualified-reservations.blogspot.com/2007/08/whats-w... My advice: study physics or chemistry.
- tjr 17y ago
  Truth, though hopefully not insurmountable truth. Maybe things would improve if more people volunteered time toward computer science research; I can envision something like the GNU Project, but for research rather than engineering, with proper administration, goals, tasks, and resources, to help establish purpose and vision, and attract volunteers to an overarching common goal. Or maybe even establish something like Y Combinator for CS research, a small-scale NSF if you will. Give a small group of innovative folks a few months of funding to create something new, regardless of if it has near-term business viability.
- yummyfajitas 17y ago
  While the CS academy has many issues, the field itself is alive and well. Google and MS both do systems research, as do several financial firms and software companies servicing the financial industry. As a person moving from physics to CS, I personally find computing to be a very interesting place right now.
  - asciilifeform 17y ago
    > Google and MS both do systems research, as do several financial firms and software companies servicing the financial industry Where, then, is the desktop operating system not built of recycled crud? Where can I see a conceptually original system created after the 1980s? > the field itself is alive and well I disagree entirely. It is a zombie, maintaining the illusion of life where there is none. Hell, UNIX still lives, and this proves that systems research is dead: http://www.art.net/~hopkins/Don/unix-haters/handbook.html http://www.art.net/~hopkins/Don/unix-haters/handbook.html Why is my desktop computer running software crippled by the conceptual limitations of 1970s hardware? Why are there "files" on my disk? Where is my single, orthogonally-persistent address space? Why is my data locked up in "applications"? Why must I write programs in ASCII text files, and plod through core dumps and stack traces? Why can't I repair and resume a crashed program?
    - yummyfajitas 17y ago
      Lack of adoption of systems research by desktop operating systems does not prove the absence of interesting systems research. With the exception of MS, most of the systems research I was referring to is not used in (or intended for) desktop operating systems.
      - tjr 17y ago
        And even systems research that is intended for desktop operating systems can be a hard sell. David Gelernter, for instance, has had a lot of interesting ideas, but getting enough regular users to adopt these systems could be a harder task than developing them in the first place.
    - joevandyk 17y ago
      Because you don't see a new desktop os, you assume that computing research is dead?
      - asciilifeform 17y ago
        Oh, it isn't dead. It is undead. Animated yes, but with no life behind it.

asciilifeform 17y ago

AFAIK the entire field is dead: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AI_winter http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AI_winter There are various explanations as to the cause of death: the end of the Cold War; the humbling of the mega-monopolies which funded "blue sky" research (mainly AT&T); a general loss of faith resulting from a decades-long lack of progress. Take your pick. In fact, the entire field of computer science has been stagnant for a while, shiny gadgets to please people with 5-minute attention spans notwithstanding: http://www.eng.uwaterloo.ca/~ejones/writing/systemsresearch.html http://www.eng.uwaterloo.ca/~ejones/writing/systemsresearch.... Bureaucrats have replaced thinkers: http://unqualified-reservations.blogspot.com/2007/08/whats-wrong-with-cs-research.html http://unqualified-reservations.blogspot.com/2007/08/whats-w... My advice: study physics or chemistry.

tjr 17y ago
Truth, though hopefully not insurmountable truth. Maybe things would improve if more people volunteered time toward computer science research; I can envision something like the GNU Project, but for research rather than engineering, with proper administration, goals, tasks, and resources, to help establish purpose and vision, and attract volunteers to an overarching common goal. Or maybe even establish something like Y Combinator for CS research, a small-scale NSF if you will. Give a small group of innovative folks a few months of funding to create something new, regardless of if it has near-term business viability.
yummyfajitas 17y ago
While the CS academy has many issues, the field itself is alive and well. Google and MS both do systems research, as do several financial firms and software companies servicing the financial industry. As a person moving from physics to CS, I personally find computing to be a very interesting place right now.
- asciilifeform 17y ago
  > Google and MS both do systems research, as do several financial firms and software companies servicing the financial industry Where, then, is the desktop operating system not built of recycled crud? Where can I see a conceptually original system created after the 1980s? > the field itself is alive and well I disagree entirely. It is a zombie, maintaining the illusion of life where there is none. Hell, UNIX still lives, and this proves that systems research is dead: http://www.art.net/~hopkins/Don/unix-haters/handbook.html http://www.art.net/~hopkins/Don/unix-haters/handbook.html Why is my desktop computer running software crippled by the conceptual limitations of 1970s hardware? Why are there "files" on my disk? Where is my single, orthogonally-persistent address space? Why is my data locked up in "applications"? Why must I write programs in ASCII text files, and plod through core dumps and stack traces? Why can't I repair and resume a crashed program?
  - yummyfajitas 17y ago
    Lack of adoption of systems research by desktop operating systems does not prove the absence of interesting systems research. With the exception of MS, most of the systems research I was referring to is not used in (or intended for) desktop operating systems.
    - tjr 17y ago
      And even systems research that is intended for desktop operating systems can be a hard sell. David Gelernter, for instance, has had a lot of interesting ideas, but getting enough regular users to adopt these systems could be a harder task than developing them in the first place.
  - joevandyk 17y ago
    Because you don't see a new desktop os, you assume that computing research is dead?
    - asciilifeform 17y ago
      Oh, it isn't dead. It is undead. Animated yes, but with no life behind it.