Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

As researchers age, they produce less disruptive work

nautil.us

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

121–130 of 157 posts

Re: As researchers age, they produce less disruptive work

#121

Post by chubot »

munificent wrote: post #28
slillibri wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't know about number 3. As a 53 year old Gen X'er, I still haven't come across things that see against the natural order. The main things I don't understand are things like the Humane AI pin, which didn't seem against the natural order, I just didn't see the appeal or usefulness of it. Maybe it just doesn't seem like there is much new being invented.

> I still haven't come across things that see against the natural order. So many people these days spend hours watching short-form videos spray endlessly from a screen while they stare dumbly at it. They aren't even picking which videos to watch, just letting the algorithm do it. Every time I see someone doing that, I just absolutely cannot relate to what's going on in their head at all. I'm certainly not above watch…

Ha, that’s the thing that gets me too. Also people watching mashed up YouTube clip compilations - these seem obviously designed for addiction.

The other thing is watching the videos in public with the tinny speakers blaring. Judging by reactions on the trains, this is socially acceptable to most people now ???

Re: As researchers age, they produce less disruptive work

#122

Post by gkoz »

inglor_cz wrote: post #87
gkoz wrote: post #85

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Could it be all the conservative propaganda that gets people prejudiced against things they're ignorant about and aren't impacted by?

IDK, but I have read a lot of objections from feminists as well. Where I live, the religious population is under 10 per cent, but complete atheists will argue like this as well. I suspect the "ick" factor is simply inherent here. Kids provoke instinctive protective/emotional reactions in a way that other phenomena don't. For example, it is quite obvious that Trump faces a lot more popular backlash due to his suspecte…

Non-religious people are also susceptible to the FUD about supposedly or genuinely new things. Whatever innate ick there clearly is, it gets co-opted to demonize much wider ranges of things, and conversely can be suppressed like in the Epstein's circle's case. I don't find it convincing that the legislators passing reactionary prohibitions are just driven by a natural ick rather than particular agenda.

Re: As researchers age, they produce less disruptive work

#123

Post by sarreph »

embedding-shape wrote: post #117
amai wrote: post #88

It is not about the age, it is about the time you work in a specific field. If you are newcomer to a field you simply don't know what is difficult and what is not. So you have a more open mind. See for example https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yuval_Ne'eman This guy was a soldier for 15 years before he studied physics for 3 years and discovered SU(3) and quarks before Gell-Mann did. So switching fields opens your mind fo…

Maybe we shouldn't extrapolate so fast though. Maybe if Ne'eman didn't spend 15 years as a paramilitary militia, he'd be studying physics 15 years sooner, and came up with even more great stuff than he did. But we wouldn't ever know, and we also don't know if the 15 years of paramilitary/military helped him or made things worse.

I guess that argument can go on forever though -- how do we know if _anyone_ is doing the right thing they're "supposed" to be doing / disrupting?

Re: As researchers age, they produce less disruptive work

#124

Post by PaulHoule »

sarreph wrote: post #123
embedding-shape wrote: post #117

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Maybe we shouldn't extrapolate so fast though. Maybe if Ne'eman didn't spend 15 years as a paramilitary militia, he'd be studying physics 15 years sooner, and came up with even more great stuff than he did. But we wouldn't ever know, and we also don't know if the 15 years of paramilitary/military helped him or made things worse.

I guess that argument can go on forever though -- how do we know if _anyone_ is doing the right thing they're "supposed" to be doing / disrupting?

In 2026 it is probably not theoretical physics. Around 2000 or so the dam broke and there have been numerous routes to quantum gravity which are plausible from a calculational point of view... but not a lot of experiments to rule them out except for those that are the most blatantly Lorenz violating. Until we see sparticles, proton decay, and the like, we can't say that much about the whole world of GUT and Strings that we're stuck in right now.

Re: As researchers age, they produce less disruptive work

#125

Post by embedding-shape »

sarreph wrote: post #123
embedding-shape wrote: post #117

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Maybe we shouldn't extrapolate so fast though. Maybe if Ne'eman didn't spend 15 years as a paramilitary militia, he'd be studying physics 15 years sooner, and came up with even more great stuff than he did. But we wouldn't ever know, and we also don't know if the 15 years of paramilitary/military helped him or made things worse.

I guess that argument can go on forever though -- how do we know if _anyone_ is doing the right thing they're "supposed" to be doing / disrupting?

Exactly, much better with just "we do what we do, and the consequences are what they are" without (potentially mis-)attributing it to things like military service or whatever their past experience may be.

Re: As researchers age, they produce less disruptive work

#126

Post by glitchc »

echelon_musk wrote: post #84
hackthemack wrote: post #6

I prefer the full quote by Douglas Adams. I've come up with a set of rules that describe our reactions to technologies: 1. Anything that is in the world when you’re born is normal and ordinary and is just a natural part of the way the world works. 2. Anything that's invented between when you’re fifteen and thirty-five is new and exciting and revolutionary and you can probably get a career in it. 3. Anything invented…

Or to be clichéd and quote 2Pac: > You don't see no loud mouth thirty-year old motherfuckers

Counter-point: George Carlin lived to a ripe old age of 71.

Re: As researchers age, they produce less disruptive work

#127

Post by plastic-enjoyer »

vjk800 wrote: post #58
hackthemack wrote: post #6

I prefer the full quote by Douglas Adams. I've come up with a set of rules that describe our reactions to technologies: 1. Anything that is in the world when you’re born is normal and ordinary and is just a natural part of the way the world works. 2. Anything that's invented between when you’re fifteen and thirty-five is new and exciting and revolutionary and you can probably get a career in it. 3. Anything invented…

I feel this more and more as I age. Especially after having children. I used to be a "tech guy" (like most people here probably) and was excited about new technology. Now my main feeling when something disruptive (like AI currently) comes up is: "why the hell do people need to rock the boat". The thing is, I'm perfectly happy living my life as I have been living so far, concentrating on doing stuff with my children a…

> I don't want to be forced to learn new stuff. I mean, I can learn new stuff occasionally for fun, but it's not fun if my life and salary depends on it. Fuck the tech bros trying to change everything up.

I think the issue is that learning the stuff you are supposed to learn is simply not fun and a drain on your time and mental energy. If you're young you may compensate this because you have a lot of time and fewer responsibilities.

Re: As researchers age, they produce less disruptive work

#128

Post by yaptrap13 »

I'm old. Turning 60 this year.Not a programmer,spent my life building things like houses and decks,a few boats. Some medical issues last year forced me to slow down which is how I started working with AI.Still not a programmer but AI does let me do some things,also takes me down wrong turns and sidetracks more than not.To the point of this post, I fully intend to create disruptive work.Why? Because the world is a fkn mess and I have kids and someday grandkids and greatgrandkids who I'll never meet.I also have a lifetime of knowledge and skills,now I can have an idea that can turn into code on github and grow into something bigger.So am I an old naively optomistic dude with little to no clue what I'm doing and don't really give a f? Absolutely. FNA

Re: As researchers age, they produce less disruptive work

#129

Post by leonidasrup »

myrmidon wrote: post #96
leonidasrup wrote: post #83

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Per region CO2 emissions don't matter, CO2 is a largely non-reactive gas, which is rapidly mixed throughout the entire troposphere in less than a year. https://www.metlink.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/11/FAQ6_2.pd... It's the total CO2 amount in atmosphere that determines radiative forcing. The IPCC summarized the current scientific consensus about radiative forcing changes as follows: "Human-caused radiative forcing…

Regional emissions do matter for the conclusions you draw. All high-income countries already trend down in emissions. Global emissions are rising because poorer countries that were basically almost "no emission"/capita in the past are still catching up (but that catch-up is less steep than in the past because green energy is available from the get-go). Conclusions would be: Emission reductions in rich countries need…

We can compare many metrics: CO₂ emissions per capita for different regions, cumulative CO₂ emissions, share of global cumulative CO₂ emissions.

https://ourworldindata.org/co2-emissions

Conclusions would be: it's not that renewables are not helping, it's renewables are not helping enough. We need global emissions tax. The European Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism (CBAM) is a step in the right direction, but still a very small step because it covers only production of few carbon-intensive goods imported to Europe.

Re: As researchers age, they produce less disruptive work

#130

Post by netrap »

casey2 wrote: post #80
consumer451 wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I am not disagreeing, but is a possible additional factor that younger, more naive, people just don't have what is and isn't "possible" so deeply ingrained in their minds? The disruptive part of the startup ecosystem kinda runs on that, right?

Young people understand that it isn't possible to win gambling, they due it anyways because of thrill seeking, which decays for multiple reasons as you get older, but has a lot to do with reputation/how established you are and your relative comfort level. This is probably why old people in highly competative fields take HRT, Dopamine Agonists, Stimulants or Psychedelics

Interesting analogy but there are many old people in Casinos...
Post reply on HN