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

"the very foundation of modern academia has been blown to bits"

twitter.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 81 posts

Re: "the very foundation of modern academia has been blown to bits"

#71

Post by Chance-Device »

danaris wrote: post #69
Chance-Device wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

To be pedantic about it, if something is a necessity it can’t be done without by definition. So if you’re in that position whatever you’re talking about wasn’t a necessity. Is this like Socrates thinking that reading will make people lazy and forgetful?

Necessities aren't always immediate necessities. Air is a necessity. If you don't have it, you'll die within a few minutes. Water is a necessity. If you don't have it, you'll die within a day or two. Food is a necessity, too, but if you don't have it, you'll live much longer than you would without water! Vitamin C is a necessity. If you don't have it, but you have other food, you'll live much longer than you would wi…

Yes, there’s delayed feedback, I thought about putting that in, I didn’t bother. I guess I should have but I didn’t anticipate this level of hostility, HN is not usually this hostile.

Re: "the very foundation of modern academia has been blown to bits"

#72

Post by Chance-Device »

thom wrote: post #70
Chance-Device wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

To be pedantic about it, if something is a necessity it can’t be done without by definition. So if you’re in that position whatever you’re talking about wasn’t a necessity. Is this like Socrates thinking that reading will make people lazy and forgetful?

Imagine, if you will, that it's a necessity for a healthy internet forum that people not be performatively obtuse in order to score points. That forum might continue to exist, but it would stop being a fun place to hang out.

Interesting. One of the replies below sets the tone, the others follow. It’s like giving permission to everyone else.

Re: "the very foundation of modern academia has been blown to bits"

#73

Post by Chance-Device »

passwordoops wrote: post #46
Chance-Device wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

To be pedantic about it, if something is a necessity it can’t be done without by definition. So if you’re in that position whatever you’re talking about wasn’t a necessity. Is this like Socrates thinking that reading will make people lazy and forgetful?

More like how using hand-held computers programmed for dopamine hits could further entrench a sedentary lifestyle, reduce social cohesion, and lead to individual brain rot

Well that’s more in the direction of unintended consequences, but sure these exist. At least you’re not being a jerk about it.

Re: "the very foundation of modern academia has been blown to bits"

#74

Post by thom »

Chance-Device wrote: post #72
thom wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Imagine, if you will, that it's a necessity for a healthy internet forum that people not be performatively obtuse in order to score points. That forum might continue to exist, but it would stop being a fun place to hang out.

Interesting. One of the replies below sets the tone, the others follow. It’s like giving permission to everyone else.

Amazed you’re continuing with this bit tbh.

Re: "the very foundation of modern academia has been blown to bits"

#75

Post by danaris »

Chance-Device wrote: post #72
thom wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Imagine, if you will, that it's a necessity for a healthy internet forum that people not be performatively obtuse in order to score points. That forum might continue to exist, but it would stop being a fun place to hang out.

Interesting. One of the replies below sets the tone, the others follow. It’s like giving permission to everyone else.

Or, and here's a thought...maybe you set the tone.

Whether you meant it to or not, your post sounded snide and arrogant.

Re: "the very foundation of modern academia has been blown to bits"

#76

Post by Chance-Device »

danaris wrote: post #75
Chance-Device wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Interesting. One of the replies below sets the tone, the others follow. It’s like giving permission to everyone else.

Or , and here's a thought...maybe you set the tone. Whether you meant it to or not, your post sounded snide and arrogant.

No I didn’t, and I’ve been entirely civil. Even if you do choose to read it that way that the responses break the guidelines and go against the spirit of the site.

Re: "the very foundation of modern academia has been blown to bits"

#77

Post by AnonymousPlanet »

speak_plainly wrote: post #67
AnonymousPlanet wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> PhDs only were adopted universally in 1917 In Oxford. That hardly counts as universal.

You’re right, maybe roughly circa 1930 across internationally recognized research universities? For some reason I thought Oxford was the holdout.

In Germany and France it was established in the early 1800s. That was when the degree wasn't just a license to teach but you also had to prove you could contribute to research. Oxford was just late to the game. Whether Oxford participated, however, was more irrelevant than not to those other places I'd guess. The US was apparently also late to it, leading to an influx of American PhD students to Germany mid 19th century.

Re: "the very foundation of modern academia has been blown to bits"

#78

Post by jaybrendansmith »

b112 wrote: post #7
this_user wrote: post #5

I am not sure what point the author is even trying to make here. On the one hand, he seems to complain about how AI has virtually made the traditionally PhD thesis obsolete, but on the other hand, he also states: > Consider that most PhD theses were never good. How often do you rush to read a PhD thesis? The vast majority of them are painful to read. You learn little if anything. So, it sounds like nothing of much va…

I think the premise was, before you had to actually do some work to create the thesis. And there was always the concern that yours could be one which was read deeply, so that thesis work had to at least show that you did some work. That there was meat behind the paper. But now, it could simply be all a couple of prompts to an LLM. The bar is just lower for not doing the work, now. But really, that's the fact everywhe…

But it was always about the questions. Physics is difficult because you must formulate the right question to ask, and often once you do, the answer is revealed. Science, I think, it about creating many questions, then many hypotheses and discarding and weeding out the ones that don't work. This is the hard part: The creation of the report SHOULD be the easy part, and why do we care if it becomes even easier? That way we can develop more and more questions and hypotheses. AI cannot really help with the hard parts, it is not creative enough and lacks understanding of the real world.

Re: "the very foundation of modern academia has been blown to bits"

#79

Post by b112 »

jaybrendansmith wrote: post #78
b112 wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think the premise was, before you had to actually do some work to create the thesis. And there was always the concern that yours could be one which was read deeply, so that thesis work had to at least show that you did some work. That there was meat behind the paper. But now, it could simply be all a couple of prompts to an LLM. The bar is just lower for not doing the work, now. But really, that's the fact everywhe…

But it was always about the questions. Physics is difficult because you must formulate the right question to ask, and often once you do, the answer is revealed. Science, I think, it about creating many questions, then many hypotheses and discarding and weeding out the ones that don't work. This is the hard part: The creation of the report SHOULD be the easy part, and why do we care if it becomes even easier? That way…

None of that is relevant without you, the person architecting the questions or the idea, being able to cogently convey this to others. If you cannot understand it enough to transfer the knowledge, or if you are incapable of expressing your inner voice enough to transfer the knowledge, it's all for not.

That's one of the concepts this process is supposed to handle. Validation that you can transfer knowledge. Broken or not, that's the point of it, and what you're replying to indicates that at least in the past, you had to "do the work" to express knowledge, and also demonstrate that you could transfer that knowledge.

Re: "the very foundation of modern academia has been blown to bits"

#80

Post by jaybrendansmith »

b112 wrote: post #79
jaybrendansmith wrote: post #78

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But it was always about the questions. Physics is difficult because you must formulate the right question to ask, and often once you do, the answer is revealed. Science, I think, it about creating many questions, then many hypotheses and discarding and weeding out the ones that don't work. This is the hard part: The creation of the report SHOULD be the easy part, and why do we care if it becomes even easier? That way…

None of that is relevant without you, the person architecting the questions or the idea, being able to cogently convey this to others. If you cannot understand it enough to transfer the knowledge, or if you are incapable of expressing your inner voice enough to transfer the knowledge, it's all for not. That's one of the concepts this process is supposed to handle. Validation that you can transfer knowledge. Broken or…

Fair point when it comes to training a PhD, but the creation of the actual report is no measure of that. The oral presentation is, along with speaking opportunities and conferences perhaps. Perhaps there are other, more contemporary approaches that could be encouraged in the PhD process?
Post reply on HN