joshbloom · 7 points · 6 comments · 2 ore fa · Open original
Comments
5 preview comments · loading full thread
Log in to use comments
Log in to h4cker, then connect Hacker News to publish comments.
ALAlive-in-202526 minuti fa
I kind of worry about new scientists minted today. When I did my phd in the 90s, the world wasn't blowing up. There wasn't a worry that some stupid llm (in the sense that it's not an intelligent being, talk among yourselves if you disagree) could make a bunch of discoveries in your area just by mass producing lots of different combinations of things and working out the implications and seeing if there were contradictions.
Will that phd matter, will your area be completely stretched in new directions in just a couple of years so you can't understand it? It's exciting and scary. Those people can't all just go to to a stupid dot com (like I did) and do something. Will there be associate profs in 3 years? Will there be tenure? We worried about this in the 90s and it was vastly less worrisome than today. I always figured I could learn a new technical field if it all went to crap. My grandfather got an agri engineering degree in the 1930s and he figured he could always find something else to do using that background.
And that was way way worse than today. Imagine if everyone you knew lost their house, their farm, their life. One grandparent was so poor they had no farm (sharecroppers), the other one lost their farm. And we were the lucky ones - they came from nothing and made it through college!
FAfarhanhubble22 minuti fa
I made the same point to an academician who was dejected about the prospects of future PhDs and Postdocs. My personal belief is that AI opens the gate for more unconventional and interdisciplinary research.
TOtoolslive31 minuti fa
Our knowledge is an inflating volume. New knowledge gets acquired at surface level, and the surface is ever growing.
SIsimianwords9 minuti fa
While I agree with the essence of the post, I wonder if the author thinks the existing scientists are convinced to use AI to get the boost. It has to come from both side.
Comments
5 preview comments · loading full threadLog in to h4cker, then connect Hacker News to publish comments.
I kind of worry about new scientists minted today. When I did my phd in the 90s, the world wasn't blowing up. There wasn't a worry that some stupid llm (in the sense that it's not an intelligent being, talk among yourselves if you disagree) could make a bunch of discoveries in your area just by mass producing lots of different combinations of things and working out the implications and seeing if there were contradictions. Will that phd matter, will your area be completely stretched in new directions in just a couple of years so you can't understand it? It's exciting and scary. Those people can't all just go to to a stupid dot com (like I did) and do something. Will there be associate profs in 3 years? Will there be tenure? We worried about this in the 90s and it was vastly less worrisome than today. I always figured I could learn a new technical field if it all went to crap. My grandfather got an agri engineering degree in the 1930s and he figured he could always find something else to do using that background. And that was way way worse than today. Imagine if everyone you knew lost their house, their farm, their life. One grandparent was so poor they had no farm (sharecroppers), the other one lost their farm. And we were the lucky ones - they came from nothing and made it through college!
I made the same point to an academician who was dejected about the prospects of future PhDs and Postdocs. My personal belief is that AI opens the gate for more unconventional and interdisciplinary research.
Our knowledge is an inflating volume. New knowledge gets acquired at surface level, and the surface is ever growing.
While I agree with the essence of the post, I wonder if the author thinks the existing scientists are convinced to use AI to get the boost. It has to come from both side.
[flagged]