I know the fourth rail on HN these days besides sex, religion and politics seems to be “AI”, but AI has taken the drudgery out of going from design -> implementation for me at least.
this is a very interesting line of analogy .. allow me to broaden it with "a backhoe cannot do the mantle inlays with black oak" and at the same time "your backhoe is done in four days but the entire home still needs building"
Curious if today's Berkeley's professors would still wear Alphabet (former Google) t-shirts while holding presentations, I now realise that things have changed a lot in the last 10 years.
I've also not gone through the whole presentation, but does he at any point talk about the moral choices one will most definitely have to make during a career in tech? (this is related to the previous paragraph). Is it a "bad career" if people choose not to work for companies (such as Alphabet) that have gone all in behind AI? Seeing as now AI is used by State-entities for very nefarious reasons. Like I said, 2026 is way different compared to 2016.
I’ve been thinking a lot more about this lately. Big Tech today is far more powerful than 1990s Microsoft and 1970s IBM ever were. I’m not anti-AI, but the sheer power major players like OpenAI, Alphabet, Microsoft, and Meta have make me very nervous.
The challenge for computer science researchers who have qualms about working for Big Tech is finding an alternative career path. Speaking from an American point of view, academia has always been competitive, and the immediate future of research funding is uncertain given the political climate. This uncertainty also extends to government labs. The challenge with industry research is that there are not a lot of non-Big Tech employers of computer science researchers. This leaves starting a business, but business is very different from research.
I’m a tenure-track professor at a community college in the Bay Area. While I’ll never be able to afford to purchase a home near my job, I am able to live well as a single man renting an apartment. I have a great career teaching and using my long summer breaks for research and side projects. I like not having to worry about “publish or perish,” and I enjoy teaching and mentoring students. While this might not be considered “successful” for some people who are aiming for a professorship at an R1 university or an industry job at a top company’s top lab, I love my job and believe it’s a fantastic route for someone who enjoys teaching and who also wants extended time during the summer for research and side projects.
Big Tech today is far more powerful than 1990s Microsoft and 1970s IBM ever were.
In aggregate, sure, but no company today comes within an order of magnitude of the power an IBM of the ‘70s and ‘80s or a Microsoft of the ‘90s and ‘00s had over the tech landscape.
Maybe it's my own bias (after working for a big tech company for 5 years), but it's certainly not the dream job I thought it would be. Soulless corporations with questionable impact on society, lot of turnover, increasing pressure every year, fear of layoffs. Even the tech isn't that exciting, there's lots of tedious work, technical debt, hacked solutions, no time for researching and building quality solution.
That being said, it's certainly different for researchers. I can imagine that being a researcher at Google is more fun than being a median SWE in another FAANG. But still, I find these companies less enticing in general, even the products tend to degrade as they keep pushing the monetization.
I’m an ex-industry researcher with experience at FAANGs, albeit as a software engineering intern (Google) and a production engineer (Facebook).
I think it depends on the interests of the researcher. If a researcher is comfortable being a “brain for hire” who is comfortable solving research problems that are driven by business needs and where there needs to be short-term or medium-term results, then I think there are plenty of opportunities at large companies, including the FAANGs. I find research more fun than software engineering, but researchers are far from immune from pressures to ship.
If a researcher is more interested in curiosity-driven work and who wants to work on a longer time frame, I’m afraid that there’s no place in industry, except for maybe Microsoft Research (which I’ve heard changed under Satya Nadella), that supports such work. The days of Bob Taylor-era Xerox PARC and Unix-era Bell Labs ended many decades ago, and while there were still curiosity-driven labs in industry well into the 2010s, I have witnessed the remainder of these old-style labs change their missions to become much more focused on immediate and near-immediate business needs.
> Design is more fun than making it work.
Great wisdom for any kind of project
> How to Have a Bad Career in Research/Academia Pre-PhD and Post-PhD (& How to Give a Bad Talk)
I've also not gone through the whole presentation, but does he at any point talk about the moral choices one will most definitely have to make during a career in tech? (this is related to the previous paragraph). Is it a "bad career" if people choose not to work for companies (such as Alphabet) that have gone all in behind AI? Seeing as now AI is used by State-entities for very nefarious reasons. Like I said, 2026 is way different compared to 2016.
The challenge for computer science researchers who have qualms about working for Big Tech is finding an alternative career path. Speaking from an American point of view, academia has always been competitive, and the immediate future of research funding is uncertain given the political climate. This uncertainty also extends to government labs. The challenge with industry research is that there are not a lot of non-Big Tech employers of computer science researchers. This leaves starting a business, but business is very different from research.
I’m a tenure-track professor at a community college in the Bay Area. While I’ll never be able to afford to purchase a home near my job, I am able to live well as a single man renting an apartment. I have a great career teaching and using my long summer breaks for research and side projects. I like not having to worry about “publish or perish,” and I enjoy teaching and mentoring students. While this might not be considered “successful” for some people who are aiming for a professorship at an R1 university or an industry job at a top company’s top lab, I love my job and believe it’s a fantastic route for someone who enjoys teaching and who also wants extended time during the summer for research and side projects.
In aggregate, sure, but no company today comes within an order of magnitude of the power an IBM of the ‘70s and ‘80s or a Microsoft of the ‘90s and ‘00s had over the tech landscape.
One of them (Patterson & Hennessy) was, and the other was (is?) chairman of the board, I forget which.
In general, Academia lacks sufficient resources and appropriate structures for dedicated efforts.
Pay is abysmal and politics is toxic. Both scare away lots of technical talent.
That being said, it's certainly different for researchers. I can imagine that being a researcher at Google is more fun than being a median SWE in another FAANG. But still, I find these companies less enticing in general, even the products tend to degrade as they keep pushing the monetization.
I think it depends on the interests of the researcher. If a researcher is comfortable being a “brain for hire” who is comfortable solving research problems that are driven by business needs and where there needs to be short-term or medium-term results, then I think there are plenty of opportunities at large companies, including the FAANGs. I find research more fun than software engineering, but researchers are far from immune from pressures to ship.
If a researcher is more interested in curiosity-driven work and who wants to work on a longer time frame, I’m afraid that there’s no place in industry, except for maybe Microsoft Research (which I’ve heard changed under Satya Nadella), that supports such work. The days of Bob Taylor-era Xerox PARC and Unix-era Bell Labs ended many decades ago, and while there were still curiosity-driven labs in industry well into the 2010s, I have witnessed the remainder of these old-style labs change their missions to become much more focused on immediate and near-immediate business needs.