Slashdot Mirror
Why Are the Best and Brightest Not Flooding DARPA?
David W. White writes "Wired mag's Danger Room carried an article today that highlighted how desperate the US Military's DARPA has become in its attempts to bring in additional brain power. The tactics include filmed testimonials, folders and even playing cards all screaming join DARPA! Where are all the Einsteins who want to be on the cutting edge for the Government?"
I assume they're worried that they'll be the tragic victims of mysterious heart attacks.
intelligent and well educated people don't want to work for an organization that supports torture and oppression?
Even ignoring the hyperbole, maybe they don't want to work for a group who's expressed purpose is to kill people.
Yes, it's a government job, and the government gives pretty good benefits, but why work as a civil servant when you could get a higher-paying job in private industry doing work under contract for DARPA?
Where are all the Einsteins who want to be on the cutting edge for the Government?
We have a government that for 8 years has tried to outsource as many of its functions as possible to private firms that pay much better than the government itself. Geez, let me guess where smart people are hiding...
Leave the gun, take the cannolis.
1) It's getting harder to believe we're the good guys.
2) The increasing view of government agencies as mismanaged and incapable (and the fact that we somewhat consistently elect candidates that loudly proclaim this outcome as immutable and inevitable), and public sector/military work as a refuge for the bureaucratic and dull.
3) Business politics are marginally easier to put up with than ideological politics and graft.
4) The private sector pays as well or better, and you probably don't have to relocate.
4a) Fewer of the best and brightest don't choose technology/research, because it's quite clear our society values lawyers and management more.
Tweet, tweet.
Who wouldn't be tripping over themselves trying to get a job with low pay, be saddled bureaucracy, receive no public recognition, have to pass periodic drug, credit and background checks for security clearance, get crappy benefits and with no stock options.
Sounds like a dream job.
Well, of course, DARPA doesn't do research. DARPA manages contracts with other organizations that do research.
The Einsteins most likely want to be in the organizations that actually do the research.
http://www.geoffreylandis.com
We are all getting paid much better in the private sector.
Playing along with the "other country" theme, if you step into a graduate engineering department, you're likely to find a majority of non U.S. citizens comprising the graduate student workforce. These people are also ineligible for most U.S. Govt. fellowships and jobs that require a decent level of security clearance. Thus, DARPA might be having a tough time recruiting top-notch talent because most of the talent is ineligible to work for DARPA.
An old-timer with old-timey ideas.
As someone who works as a government contractor, my guess is it is because government bureaucracy stifles innovation. Most smart minds would rather work in academia where they get more freedoms, less restrictions, and are more easily able to surround themselves with likeminded individuals.
-----BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK----- Version: 3.12 GIT d? s: a-- C++++ UL++++ P++ L+++ E- W++ N o-- K- w--- O- M+ V PS+ P
Many scientists have wised up to the fact their fun invention today maybe burning the skin off some poor kid tomorrow.
While they didn't do the actual killing, they do have other options available to them.
As far as I can tell, from the article, it's DARPA lacking program managers that is the issue. A DARPA program manager allocates money, directs research within a program and decides if a particular group in the program is performing up to scratch. Sure, you have to be pretty well up on the state of the art in a fairly broad range of areas to succeed in doing this but, at the end of the day, you aren't actually doing any research. Working for DARPA is the scientific equivalent of middle management. Who gets into research to do that? This impression is gathered from the giant sample set of one DARPA program manager I've have the pleasure of working with, so I may have a skewed view on the whole operation.
Security Clearance.
We're rejecting and canning people because of even the most minor and often ancient of unrelated and innocuous financial transgressions and social relations -- even for the most insignificant of positions in government, contractors and even subcontractors thereof.
It's asinine. There are senators and congressmen with worse records and credit than contractors denied clearance to mop their floors.
The process is so intrusive and debasing that many people take one look at the paperwork and simply walk away.
"While I've known many brilliant people involved in making stuff for the military, most intelligent people also seem to be anti-military. I'm not saying that people are stupid to be pro-military, just that there seems to be some correlation." The correlation is this: You are anti-miltary. You think you are intelligent. (Everybody does) You think that people that agree with you are also intelligent. (Everybody does) I am sure that pro-military persons think that most intelligent people also seem to be pro-military. Personally I'm anti-miltary, and really dumb.
Too dumb to preview it seems
fixed:
"While I've known many brilliant people involved in making stuff for the military, most intelligent people also seem to be anti-military. I'm not saying that people are stupid to be pro-military, just that there seems to be some correlation."
The correlation is this:
You are anti-miltary.
You think you are intelligent. (Everybody does)
You think that people that agree with you are also intelligent. (Everybody does)
I am sure that pro-military persons think that most intelligent people also seem to be pro-military.
Personally I'm anti-miltary, and really dumb.
Even ignoring the hyperbole, maybe they don't want to work for a group who's expressed purpose is to kill people.
This is nonsense, of course. In the past, plenty of highly intelligent people have contributed to warfare and advanced weaponry. Leornardo da Vinci comes to mind. The problem is has to do with what Thomas Kuhn wrote about in "The Structure of Scientific Revolution". DARPA relies on a filtering mechanism that employs academics. Academics are not open to new ideas that may upset their world view. New Einsteins would do just that, disrupt their world view. They therefore tend to avoid organizations like DARPA and prefer to go it alone. Eventually, new paradigms are accepted and science experiences a seismic explosion of creativity. DARPA would do well to encourage disruptive ideas but, given that the old guard is in charge, I am not holding my breath. We might have to wait for them to die off, as Max Planck once suggested.
I disagree and ask that you look there again. You will see that IBM is hiring in China, Mexico, Brazil, Russia, etc., etc., maybe 10% of the jobs are in the US.
I worked for IBM for 10 years - the best and the brightest rarely stay there because it doesn't take long to realise that layoffs at IBM have more to do with stock prices quarter to quarter and politics. IBM is as guilty as the govt and many other companies regarding outsourcing. The best and the brightest beat a path to the exit.
It once was a great company, sadly they have lost their way and essentially become a marketing company.
No, its not nonsense. Noone said all of the best and the brightest refuse to do so, but a non-negligible portion do. I for instance, refuse to take any job that creates weapons, or from a company who's main purpose is to make weapons. I consider it equal to being a murderer.
I still have more fans than freaks. WTF is wrong with you people?
It's not that I want to get paid better. I actually care almost nothing about that.
I just won't make weapons. And sorry AC, no salary would make me change my mind.
Please, flame on all, and tell me how many useful technologies are spun off from DARPA research everyday. And, come to think of it, how many weapons are created out of 'off-label' uses of otherwise innocuous. I guess, for me, it's principle.
I wonder if studies exist of correlations between higher education and pacifism...
[/sarcasm]
A colleague of mine got $50 million from DARPA to do something...less than feasible. His institution put up a new building with it, which is the norm.
"I zero-index my hamsters" - Willtor (147206)
Sorry, what do weapons have to do with scientific revolutions?
Wernher von Braun and J. Robert Oppenheimer would be my examples of weapons scientists, but scientists can be pacifists, too. Joseph Rotblat quit the Manhattan project, and later received a Nobel for his efforts to encourage disarmament. Linus Pauling had a change of heart after WWII and spoke out against nuclear testing, among other things. And I think that if you talk to people today, many will express reservations about working for the military-industrial complex.
Regarding world views, Einstein had the "right" world view for the theories of relativity. However, his world view could not accommodate quantum mechanics. Despite facilitating a paradigm shift in one area of theory, Einstein was unable to accept a different shift in a different area.
I disagree that "academics are not open to new ideas". The problem these days is that there are very few "disruptive" ideas. There are few new theories worth exploring; we are mostly nailing down the outer reaches of existing ones, and discovering that what we have got works extremely well. Every scientist wants to push the envelope. After all, scientists are rewarded with Nobel prizes for radically shifting our understanding of nature.
We live in a post-Kuhn era, where the phrase "paradigm shift" is cliché. Scientists are well acquainted with his ideas, whether explicitly or implicitly. The last thing we need is a bunch of people telling us that we're locked into our paradigms, because it's simply not true. When the LHC starts up, everyone is hoping that new physics will be found, because accumulating more data to reinforce existing theories is not terribly exciting.
You think you are intelligent. (Everybody does)
You think that people that agree with you are also intelligent. (Everybody does) That's pretty much the underpinning for every Internet flame war ever.
Yes, but the perceived moral superiority of one's state has a lot to do with people's willingness to support it. I would most happily have applied my talents to supporting US military technology efforts during WWII or even the cold war, when the US really did appear to be under existential threat.
But in today's world, it looks to many of us more like our government has been picking wars they wanted to have and seeking justification afterwards
Recent US military antics have leveraged the population's fear of from an attack that killed 3000 people to initiate a war with an unrelated country that has now resulted in the death of nearly a million people
I know there are people who feel differently than I about these events - but many also feel the same or similarly. I am no pacifist, but I feel like my current government uses kindergarten logic internationally in ways that cost millions of human lives.
That alone is plenty to keep me out of DARPA, and I suspect it is for many others as well.
If there were a real external threat, I'd be supporting my nation's efforts to fight it as would any other good patriot. Right now, the greatest threat is from within.
I stole this sig from someone cleverer than me.
I'm gonna go ahead and say that discrimination based on, you know, race is a better example of "racism". Discrimination based on national origin is called "nationalism". Note the common root words in both cases. Actually it's not even that. I'm not a US citizen and hence I don't have a right to be in the US. The US isn't being racist if it decides not to let me in. Just like China or Japan, or Chad wouldn't be racist in deciding not to let me in. I'm not from those countries and so I don't have a right to go to them.
If a US employer decides to hire someone from the US instead of me, that's also not racist. Maybe they want to avoid all the paperwork and expense of getting me a work permit. Or maybe they want to hire someone that can come in for an interview on short notice. No one would say that a California company was being regionalist in deciding to hire a local rather than someone from New York.
echo -e 'global _start\n _start:\n mov eax, 2\n int 80h\n jmp _start' > a.asm; nasm a.asm -f elf; ld a.o -o a;
That's too bad because an anti-Turing revolution is precisely what is going to happen to computer science. The time is ripe for a revolution.
Science welcomes such things, if in fact they pan out. And yes, they can suffer from opposition at first, but in the end results are what count, and starting a revolution is a good way to get your name in the history books. That's why we know the name Einstein, because overturned what you would call "orthodoxy", but I'd call a result that had survived any practical experimentation for centuries.
Turing is basically the same as Newton in this situation. If you can disprove his theorems, or build a machine that operates under less restrictive assumptions, then get to it and make a name for yourself. The closest we've come even in theory is the quantum computer, which differs from Turing's machine in only some ways, not all. Practically there's been tremendous progress but it's still in it's infancy. This could be the very revolution you're saying is needed but not happening, even though it is happening as fast as the people working on it can do it, because it means their names may be remembered just like Turing's is.
Saying science is like a religion, where nobody dares challenge the "orthodoxy", and there's a disincentive to upturning conventional thought, is freaking ludicrous claim in light of the facts.
The enemies of Democracy are
Point taken. And I do not mean in any way to denigrate the talents and abilities of these folks. What upsets me is the constant demands for higher visa quotas because the execs say that we don't have the talent here. That our colleges aren't very good and on and on. If they were to be honest they would simply say, there are plenty of talented well educated people here already but we choose to hire from outside of the country so that we can pay lower wages.
In the end we find that more and more of these foreign hires go back to their own countries bringing with them the knowledge and experience gained here at lower wages. Lower because our local corporations care not one whit for the future of this country, only that they hit their quarterly marks. I don't blame the foreign workers, I would do exactly as they do. At the end we as a country have underemployed, discouraged, talented and yes even brilliant engineers and scientist who can no longer compete in the marketplace becasue they were never given the opportunity to sharpen their skills in a real world environment.
I'm glad you mentioned Turing because this is rather a propos. IMO, Turing and his ideas are the worse things to have happened to computer science (mod me down as a troll, if you hate Kuhn and/or the free flow of ideas). I am sure you'll disagree on what I have to say but hey, nobody has a monopoly on opinions. Consider that the computer industry is faced with three major crises: software unreliability, low productivity and the parallel programming problem. Guess what? Not one of Turing's supposedly brilliant ideas is of any help. Not a single one! You know why? It's because Turing's ideas are the cause of those crises.
Stupid people are the reason for software unreliability, low productivity, and the lack of parallel programs. Synchronization primitives for parallel processing are *old*, as in 40 to 50 years old. Software unreliability was also solved around that time them with the introduction of formal proofs for algorithms. Technically, if a piece of computer code lacks a proof of correctness, it can't even be called an algorithm to begin with; it's just a heuristic.
You were probably expecting The Next Big Thing(TM) to come out as a library with bindings for your favorite programming language that would magically solve your synchronization and security problems, right? heh.
Regarding your ideas about science, how can massive paradigm shifts occur if they aren't based on existing trusted scientific experiments? You could claim that you have a great new model of gravity, but unless it contains Newton's inverse square law for objects at non relativistic speeds, it fails. If it doesn't explain general relativity (and specifically points out how it is better than GR), then it fails. Same with your brand new theories of computer science. If you can't prove that whatever new methods you come up with are a) turing complete, and b) formally correct (using existing mathematical tools), then they fail. If you can't understand why scientists might like to have new theories proven by way of trusted ones, perhaps you should go sell magic crystals to people or predict their futures.
Your claim that Turing's theories do not help to solve the problem of "software unreliability" is akin to me complaining that your comments have yet to help me change the alternator in my car; what's one got to do with the other? How do you propose that Turing's theoretical model of computational capacity at all affects "software unreliability, low productivity and the parallel programming problem" ?
HA! That's what you think. Guess who gets rotated in and out ? People who know each other. Darpa is notorious for being an old boys network. Rotation doesn't fix the problem.