A related matter: I get the impression from the section â2. I should have prioritised personal fit moreâ that you (Richard) think it wouldâve been better if youâd skipped trying out engineering-style roles and gone straight into philosophy-style roles. Do you indeed think that?
It seems plausible that going in an engineering direction for a couple years first was a good move ex ante, because you already knew you were a fit for philosophy but didnât know whether you were a fit for things more along the lines of engineering? So maybe it was worth checking whether something else was an even better fit for you, or whether something else was a good enough fit that your comparative advantage (including your interest as a factor) would be things that somehow draw on both skillsets to a substantial degree?
I.e., even if ex post it appears that âexploitingâ in the philosophy path is the best move, perhaps, ex ante, it was worth some exploration first?
(Of course, I donât know the details of your career, plans, or your own knowledge several years ago of your skills and interests. And even if the answers to the above questions are basically âyesâ, itâs still plausible that it wouldâve been better to explore for less time, or in a way more consciously focused on exploration valueâwhich mightâve entailed different roles or a different approach.)
Iâve had a related experience. I did an economics PhD, and I started with a speculative, exploratory intent: I meant to use that time to figure out whether I was a good fit for a career in academic economics research. It turned out I was not a good fit, and the experience was miserable. I hadnât minded taking classes or working as a research assistant for other people, but I disliked the speculative and open-ended nature of leading my own research projects. Once I realized that, I graduated as fast as I could. Now Iâm much happier as a tech industry economist and data scientist.
Iâm still not sure if I made a mistake in choosing to start the PhD. On one hand, I think it was a reasonable gamble that could have had a huge payoff, and I donât know if I could have figured out I was not cut out for academic research without actually doing it. And it was a good investment; my current job requires an economics PhD or long experience in a related field, as do highly-compensated jobs in other industries. On the other hand, 4-5 years is a very long time to feel like you hate your job. Itâs hard to be creative and hardworking and build your Plan B when youâre totally miserable.
If I were to start my career over, I would spend more time thinking about how to âfail earlyâ and make exploration more pleasant and efficient.
I get the impression that you (Richard) think it wouldâve been better if youâd skipped trying out engineering-style roles and gone straight into philosophy-style roles. Do you indeed think that?
I donât think this; learning about technical ideas in AI, and other aspects of working at DeepMind, have been valuable for me; so itâs hard to point to things which I should have changed. But as I say in the post, in worlds where I wasnât so lucky, then I expect it would have been useful to weight personal fit more. For example, if Iâd had the option of committing to a ML PhD instead of a research engineering role, then I might have done so despite uncertainty about the personal fit; this would probably have gone badly.
A related matter: I get the impression from the section â2. I should have prioritised personal fit moreâ that you (Richard) think it wouldâve been better if youâd skipped trying out engineering-style roles and gone straight into philosophy-style roles. Do you indeed think that?
It seems plausible that going in an engineering direction for a couple years first was a good move ex ante, because you already knew you were a fit for philosophy but didnât know whether you were a fit for things more along the lines of engineering? So maybe it was worth checking whether something else was an even better fit for you, or whether something else was a good enough fit that your comparative advantage (including your interest as a factor) would be things that somehow draw on both skillsets to a substantial degree?
I.e., even if ex post it appears that âexploitingâ in the philosophy path is the best move, perhaps, ex ante, it was worth some exploration first?
(Of course, I donât know the details of your career, plans, or your own knowledge several years ago of your skills and interests. And even if the answers to the above questions are basically âyesâ, itâs still plausible that it wouldâve been better to explore for less time, or in a way more consciously focused on exploration valueâwhich mightâve entailed different roles or a different approach.)
Iâve had a related experience. I did an economics PhD, and I started with a speculative, exploratory intent: I meant to use that time to figure out whether I was a good fit for a career in academic economics research. It turned out I was not a good fit, and the experience was miserable. I hadnât minded taking classes or working as a research assistant for other people, but I disliked the speculative and open-ended nature of leading my own research projects. Once I realized that, I graduated as fast as I could. Now Iâm much happier as a tech industry economist and data scientist.
Iâm still not sure if I made a mistake in choosing to start the PhD. On one hand, I think it was a reasonable gamble that could have had a huge payoff, and I donât know if I could have figured out I was not cut out for academic research without actually doing it. And it was a good investment; my current job requires an economics PhD or long experience in a related field, as do highly-compensated jobs in other industries. On the other hand, 4-5 years is a very long time to feel like you hate your job. Itâs hard to be creative and hardworking and build your Plan B when youâre totally miserable.
If I were to start my career over, I would spend more time thinking about how to âfail earlyâ and make exploration more pleasant and efficient.
I donât think this; learning about technical ideas in AI, and other aspects of working at DeepMind, have been valuable for me; so itâs hard to point to things which I should have changed. But as I say in the post, in worlds where I wasnât so lucky, then I expect it would have been useful to weight personal fit more. For example, if Iâd had the option of committing to a ML PhD instead of a research engineering role, then I might have done so despite uncertainty about the personal fit; this would probably have gone badly.