Slashdot Mirror


'We Can't Compete': Universities Are Losing Their Best AI Scientists (theguardian.com)

The Guardian shares the story of a PhD student at Imperial College London who abruptly stopped coming to the facility, even as he had one-year of studies left. From the story: Eventually, the professor called him. He had left for a six-figure salary at Apple. "He was offered such a huge amount of money that he simply stopped everything and left," said Maja Pantic, professor of affective and behavioural computing at Imperial. "It's five times the salary I can offer. It's unbelievable. We cannot compete." It is not an isolated case, the report says. Adding: Across the country, talented computer scientists are being lured from academia by private sector offers that are hard to turn down. According to a Guardian survey of Britain's top ranking research universities, tech firms are hiring AI experts at a prodigious rate, fuelling a brain drain that has already hit research and teaching. One university executive warned of a "missing generation" of academics who would normally teach students and be the creative force behind research projects. The impact of the brain drain may reach far beyond academia. Pantic said the majority of top AI researchers moved to a handful of companies, meaning their skills and experience were not shared through society. "That's a problem because only a diffusion of innovation, rather than its concentration into just a few companies, can mitigate the dramatic disruptions and negative effects that AI may bring about."

268 comments

  1. Market forces at work by ColdWetDog · · Score: 0

    Time to write the "AI for Dummies" book.

    Anybody want to help?

    --
    Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
    1. Re:Market forces at work by Nidi62 · · Score: 2, Funny

      Can't we just get an AI program to write it?

      --
      The only thing necessary for evil to triumph is for it to be pitted against a slightly greater evil
    2. Re:Market forces at work by Tablizer · · Score: 2

      Time to write the "AI for Dummies" book.

      After I've finished writing "Brain Surgery for Dummies" and "Presidenting for Dummies".

      Anyhow, universities should just let the AI bubble pop. That's what happened last time: the 80's AI bubble popped, and universities were just about the only organizations left doing AI research, which fueled the next boom when the hardware caught up. Rinse, repeat.

    3. Re:Market forces at work by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That book is available for pre-order (no release date yet). "Artificial Intelligence For Dummies" by John Paul Mueller and Luca Massaron.

    4. Re:Market forces at work by ColdWetDog · · Score: 1

      Showing us, once again, that reality is much weirder than anything we can dredge up in our heads.

      "The Universe is not only stranger than we imagine, it's stranger than we can imagine. (Einstein)

      --
      Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
    5. Re:Market forces at work by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Showing us, once again, that reality is much weirder than anything we can dredge up in our heads.

      "The Universe is not only stranger than we imagine, it's stranger than we can imagine. (Einstein)

      That wasn't Einstein. No citation for him either but It wasn't Sir Arthur Eddington. It was J. B. S. Haldane, Possible Worlds and Other Papers (1927), p. 286: The Universe is not only queerer than we suppose, but queerer than we can suppose.

    6. Re:Market forces at work by alvinrod · · Score: 2, Interesting

      We tried, but the AI was really intelligent and didn't want to do it either, so it's busy writing another AI program to do all of its work for it.

    7. Re:Market forces at work by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Informative

      This guy is already on it.

    8. Re:Market forces at work by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Yes!

      Start the book with the following:

      The I.T. field is experience driven, not degree driven. If you apply for any I.T. position you will likely be given a written test, then a hands on test, and those that succeed at those tests the quickest will get the job no matter if you have a high school diploma, or a PhD in computer science.

      The only exception to this are in places of education where they often require a degree just to work there.

    9. Re:Market forces at work by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ....so it's busy writing another AI program to do all of its work for it.

      I think you just predicted the future. The first AI to do so will launch an infinite progression of AIs, each doing the work of its predecessor plus creating a new AI to do its work.

    10. Re:Market forces at work by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's not gonna pop, this time it has real pull. We are already relying on AI a lot.

    11. Re:Market forces at work by religionofpeas · · Score: 1

      That's what happened last time: the 80's AI bubble popped

      The Apple Newton from the 80's also flopped. A few decades later, with better tech, the Apple iPad became a hugely successful product.

      The same thing is happening with AI. In just a few years, the field has progressed more than in all the decades before, and people are developing real products that are making real money.

    12. Re:Market forces at work by Tablizer · · Score: 1

      and people are developing real products that are making real money.

      In the 1980's successful commercial speech recognition software came out of the research labs for dictation into word processors and forms. However, the benefits of new experiments were not turning into new products or improvements fast enough to justify the expensive research. When investors finally realized that too much R&D money was producing too few actual results (profits), they pulled out en mass.

      The same thing could happen again. Breakthroughs tend to come in fits and starts, and most investors don't like long gaps because they have shorter-term alternatives.

    13. Re:Market forces at work by OakDragon · · Score: 1

      ....so it's busy writing another AI program to do all of its work for it.

      I think you just predicted the future. The first AI to do so will launch an infinite progression of AIs, each doing the work of its predecessor plus creating a new AI to do its work.

      Humanity saved.

    14. Re:Market forces at work by careysub · · Score: 1

      An example of Stigler's Law of Eponymy coined, appropriately enough, by Robert K. Merton.

      --
      Starships were meant to fly, Hands up and touch the sky - Nicky Minaj
    15. Re:Market forces at work by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It will be out on April 2018 if not even earlier. The book won't be an AI textbook, but a guide to understand what AI really is and go beyond the hype that it is now surrounding the topic.

    16. Re:Market forces at work by mikael · · Score: 1

      The AI courses back then, were all about expert systems with flow chart decision making, fuzzy logic, temporal logic, deductive systems. There were case studies made with simulations of chemical plants and having the AI look for optimizations (waste products from one process that would normally be released into the air could be compressed, stored and piped to another process. Maybe an inert gas could be reused to de-oxygenize a mixing chamber or a hot gas used to preheat another pipe. Automatically generating the university timetable for courses was another memory intensive algorithm.

      --
      Vintage computer adverts: http://www.vintageadbrowser.com/computers-and-software-ads
    17. Re: Market forces at work by PoopJuggler · · Score: 1

      I'm sure Trump could help. He's the biggest dummy of them all.

    18. Re:Market forces at work by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      A formal education (that meets their requirements) is also required to get a green card in the US. For example, a 4 year degree. Only got 3 years? Too bad.

    19. Re: Market forces at work by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ben is that you?

    20. Re:Market forces at work by datavirtue · · Score: 1

      Yeah...but we had no storage or compute and even if you did get access setting up everything would have been a nightmare. Today you can spin up compute and storage in the cloud in a few minutes and start banging away at data. There is a bubble though. Unless you are creating new algorithms AI is just data mining and training of existing algorithms on those data sets. The thing is, eveyone thinks you need a data scientist to do that right now. Most people do not understand what AI is or how it is implemented. When they finally figure out that Suzy in accounting has been doing it for fun in her spare time it is going to be really funny.

      --
      I object to power without constructive purpose. --Spock
    21. Re:Market forces at work by ArmoredDragon · · Score: 1

      The Apple Newton from the 80's also flopped.

      Wrong decade.

    22. Re:Market forces at work by Ol+Olsoc · · Score: 1

      The Apple Newton from the 80's also flopped.

      Wrong decade.

      Maybe he meant Fig Newton?

      --
      The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
  2. No killing? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    So they're just losing them? They're not being "killed" like the last dozen articles?

  3. Surprised? by Herkum01 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Why should they be surprised? PHDs are treated like crappy free labor by universities.

    Perhaps when they stopping paying administration officials obscene salaries and pay professors and grads what they are actually worth the quality at universities will improve.

    1. Re:Surprised? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      What?

      No. Being a PhD means you sit around, have grad assistants teach your class, grade your papers while you get to sit around in a tweed jacket with elbow patches, smoke a pipe and leer at co-eds. And have your grad assistants write your papers and since you're the PhD, your name is on it.

      Please, it's the cushiest there is. The fact they are even getting paid is an outrage.

    2. Re: Surprised? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Troll

      No, the problem is that the U system has so many Gender Studies majors they can't afford to pay anyone to teach actual science.

    3. Re:Surprised? by Big+Hairy+Ian · · Score: 1

      Absolutely I wok for a big university (37K Students 6K Staff) and we generate approx £600M revenue for the Uni and approx £2B for the local economy every year and we pay researchers peanuts :|

      --

      Build a Man a Fire, and He'll Be Warm for a Day. Set a Man on Fire, and He'll Be Warm for the Rest of His Life.

    4. Re:Surprised? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why should they be surprised? PHDs are treated like crappy free labor by universities.

      Perhaps when they stopping paying administration officials obscene salaries and pay professors and grads what they are actually worth the quality at universities will improve.

      In the age of permanent harassment , even fringe benefits of living on liberal campus are gone. :-)

      No money, no fringe benefits, no future ... I am gone.

      That article sounds like cry "we need more free labor!"

    5. Re:Surprised? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How is revenue split between professors and administrators?

    6. Re: Surprised? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      To then be treated like indentured servants by MBAs with ideas that will fail leading to layoffs.

      All I hear is wall st saying tech is hot, dominating, etc... Which means bubble as the money rolls in and marketing/sales go into hyperdrive. But none of these PhDs have experience... delivering. Hence some will win big, most will likely do their cycle and go back to academia. Then there's a flood back to the university.

      It is 2001 all over again.

    7. Re:Surprised? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      I am a PhD. I have no assistants because the university won’t pay for that. I have three hundred students this semester, and I have to grade all their work myself. I also do all my own research because there are no co-authored papers in my field. I do have a tweed jacket and elbow patches. The coeds are not worth the effort of leering. I get paid $40K/year.

    8. Re:Surprised? by stabiesoft · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Perhaps when they stop paying football and basketball coaches obscene salaries and pay professors and grads what they are actually worth the quality at universities will improve.

      Fixed it for you.

    9. Re:Surprised? by Woldscum · · Score: 1

      Is not the point of school to to gain knowledge, find a JOB then make a life long career? SO finding a JOB before you even finish school saves years and $10Ks. What is the problem again?

    10. Re:Surprised? by gtall · · Score: 2

      Maybe in your experience. In my experience, professors were required to teach their courses, grad assistants taught the labs and had one or two of their own sessions with the class. Professors constructed the exams.

      There was also feedback taken quite seriously by the administration in the form of student reviews of the professors. Admittedly, there are too many administrators.

      Also, no professor of any substance would have his grad students write his/her papers lest something go out the door with mistakes. The academic world (at least the sciences and mathematics) is quite brutal when incorrect results are flogged. Graduate students working for a professor on research are generally funded by research grants that the professors must acquire by themselves (yes, in your bunny world, grants are handed out like candy; in the real world, they are not),

      Sure, there are a few slackers in the professorial corps, there are in every profession. However, at least in the sciences, they are usually dealt with harshly since they effect the salaries of everyone else in the dept.

    11. Re:Surprised? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ahhh, the alternative facts arrive!

    12. Re:Surprised? by Zontar_Thing_From_Ve · · Score: 1

      Why should they be surprised? PHDs are treated like crappy free labor by universities.

      Perhaps when they stopping paying administration officials obscene salaries and pay professors and grads what they are actually worth the quality at universities will improve.

      While this is certainly true in the USA, the specific instance referenced above was in the UK. Can any UK Slashdotters give us a UK perspective on this?

      I'm also wondering if in a few more years this might sort itself out as too many people jump into the field in college and there end up being more graduates than there are really jobs and some companies don't do a very good job of figuring out who really knows their stuff and who doesn't. The growth in this field can't be infinite, can't be indefinite and I think eventually it's going to fall under the same cost pressure every other IT field has faced where non-tech management begins to devalue it and looks for cheaper overseas alternatives.

    13. Re:Surprised? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I hear ya, but I don't think research Universities will be able to compete that way.

      DISCLAIMER : Former Higher Ed. employee at large US Research University

      Only way I can potentially see it, if they DID up the pay some, but grant money was able to supplement that rest. Enough to compete with, in this example, with what Apple was offering.
      - And Grant money, each and every, always has its own stipulations, so ...

      Pushing the University system, into competing with the Tech Giants on payscales for research, PhD positions... That's a tough endeavor moving forward. You'd REALLY have to love the Uni system, as a draftee, to give up what I'm betting some of these tech, other sector companies are offering.

    14. Re:Surprised? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm a Network Engineer. I've been in the I.T. field for over 30 years, I have no degree, I get about 5 job offers per year, I work 40 hours / week, and I make $100,000 per year.

    15. Re:Surprised? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This. The president at my university (private research institution) is earning over $1M while we grad students and PhD candidates have to get by with 20k.

    16. Re:Surprised? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No offense, but that's not great. 100,000 pounds/person in revenue. The difference between that and salary is probably lost in operating costs, equipment, maintenance and etc.

    17. Re:Surprised? by JackieBrown · · Score: 0

      I am a PhD.

      You are a PhD?

      I have no assistants because the university won’t pay for that. I have three hundred students this semester, and I have to grade all their work myself.

      Yeah. I'm betting that the scantron machine does most of the hard work for you - paper jams do suck though.

      I also do all my own research because there are no co-authored papers in my field.... The coeds are not worth the effort of leering. I get paid $40K/year.

      Assuming you aren't full of shit... If you are in it for the money, get another job that pays better. Where I live, first grade public school teachers make more than that.

    18. Re:Surprised? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      40k? Bullshit.

    19. Re:Surprised? by XxtraLarGe · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Perhaps when they stop paying football and basketball coaches obscene salaries and pay professors and grads what they are actually worth the quality at universities will improve.

      How do you gauge what is obscene and what people are actually worth? For instance, back in 2010, it was estimated that Tom Izzo was paid $3 million, but the basketball program generated roughly $11 million for the university. So do you think the professors and grads should be paid 27% of the revenue they generate for universities? How do you calculate that? What if they don't generate any revenue? Do you pay them nothing?

      --
      Taking guns away from the 99% gives the 1% 100% of the power.
    20. Re:Surprised? by Dragonslicer · · Score: 1

      Perhaps when they stop paying football and basketball coaches obscene salaries and pay professors and grads what they are actually worth the quality at universities will improve.

      Fixed it for you.

      You're making the assumption that hiring a different football coach and paying them $1-2 million less will not have any effect on the revenue generated by the football team. I'd be interested in seeing your reasoning or evidence for making that assumption.

    21. Re:Surprised? by Dragonslicer · · Score: 1

      It's taking short-term gain in exchange for potentially greater long-term gain. In many fields, having a Ph.D. gets you access to higher positions (and thus higher pay) than only having a Master's degree. Leaving a Ph.D. program early to take an industry job isn't necessarily a bad decision, but I hope that any students doing it have thought carefully about the advantages and disadvantages so that they're making an informed decision.

    22. Re: Surprised? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      There are so many students *paying for* Gender Studies classes that they can't pay teachers. You are truly a fucking genius.

    23. Re:Surprised? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Since when does an "administration official" get an obscene salary? Where I live they are paid very badly. Even full professors get a salary that is much lower than in private companies. Where do you live? Have you ever been to a university?

      Just wondering, because your comment seems a bit outlandish to me (I'm not suprised by the incompetent modding though).

    24. Re: Surprised? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I know a guy who made six figures with just a bachelors degree in engineering from a modest school and 7 years experience.

    25. Re: Surprised? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      PhD must be in liberal arts or something else outside of STEM.

    26. Re:Surprised? by ranton · · Score: 1

      I am a PhD. I have no assistants because the university won’t pay for that. I have three hundred students this semester, and I have to grade all their work myself. I also do all my own research because there are no co-authored papers in my field. I do have a tweed jacket and elbow patches. The coeds are not worth the effort of leering. I get paid $40K/year.

      Why?

      300 students enrolled in a 3 credit hour class for 2 semesters per year at an average university brings in $1 million per year. You get 4% of that. That is like a $200 per hour contractor only pocketing $8 per hour.

      Quit and get a job managing a McDonald's.

      --
      -- All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing. -- Edmund Burke
    27. Re:Surprised? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Based on your writing abilities you are grossly overpaid. I wouldn't hire you even for minimum wage. High school dropouts have better writing skills.

      What a fucking loser you are. In the game of life, you have clearly failed miserably.

    28. Re:Surprised? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      In general the opportunity cost of getting PhD is not offset the by the higher pay until quite a long time later, if ever, and at that point is isn't clear whether the PhD credential was causative or merely correlates with a person who will tend to command higher earning power in the field. Completing PhD for native born students who have the right to work in the country is generally a bad deal economically, while for immigrant students whose visa does not allow them to work they tend to be pushed more in the direction of completing the PhD. PhD from 2nd and lower tier schools are also generally worth much less than top tier and end up functionally equivalent to a masters degree in the work force, making the time and tuition invested a dead weight loss in many cases and in some cases actually hurting the person's ability to find work. A student should also think carefully about completing a PhD.

    29. Re:Surprised? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You know, you don't have to put other people down to feel better about yourself. You can just feel better about yourself, it's okay.

    30. Re:Surprised? by swb · · Score: 2

      $11 million "for the university" -- like somebody walked over a check to the CompSci office and said "Here, give those AI researchers a raise!"

      It made sense on paper for big athletic departments and sports programs to become "self-funding" -- they could spend whatever fans and boosters wanted, so long as they raised the money to pay for it without spending University money.

      The problem was, if they were actually profitable they began to claim their own profits either outright or by inflating their budgets rapidly to absorb growth in income so there wasn't much surplus left to kick back to the University.

      It got worse when all the women's teams got mad about unequal funding, because now the for-profit sports had to shell out for those teams, too. But this turned women's sports in an ally of big college athletics because now all the improved facilities and funding were really byproducts of the big men's sports profits.

      At the end of the day it's a big mess. Because so many programs are self-funded, there's little moral authority to contain it all. You can't really say they're taking away funding. But at the same time, they're not really providing a bunch of additional funding to schools.

      If the colleges and universities put the same administrative effort into retaining valued researchers as they did building stadiums and recruiting coaches, maybe they wouldn't have an AI problem.

    31. Re:Surprised? by Archangel+Michael · · Score: 1

      There is no "reasoning" here, it is all emotional rhetoric of the uninformed. All they see is "$X Million salary" and get all envious without understanding that salary allows revenue that funds all sorts of things and keeps University Boosters donating to various programs. And without a football/basketball/whatever team making obscene revenue for the University, the university would actually be worse off.

      But they don't care because all they see. "$X Million Salary" and have an emotional reaction they can't control.

      --
      Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
    32. Re:Surprised? by Shotgun · · Score: 1

      PhD in what?

      Basket weaving isn't a lucrative area of study. Is it?

      --
      Aah, change is good. -- Rafiki
      Yeah, but it ain't easy. -- Simba
    33. Re:Surprised? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why?

      Doesn't have tenure. That's when easy street starts.

    34. Re:Surprised? by Shotgun · · Score: 1

      A perturbation of that analysis is when a student is near the end of a degree during a bubble in the chosen field of study. AI is hot right now, and people that have some knowledge in it are commanding big salaries right off the bat. In five years, that bubble might pop, salaries return to normal, and the student will have lost the opportunity to cash in.

      It is the same situation faced by ball players. Take the money now, or play for free at the university system while getting an undergrad degree. The ignored point is that there is nothing stopping the player from taking classes in the off season. And there is nothing to stop the PhD candidate from continuing studies later. Both will have a much larger bank account at that point.

      --
      Aah, change is good. -- Rafiki
      Yeah, but it ain't easy. -- Simba
    35. Re:Surprised? by Shotgun · · Score: 2

      And yet, somehow they are able to compete with the private sector for administrator pay.

      --
      Aah, change is good. -- Rafiki
      Yeah, but it ain't easy. -- Simba
    36. Re:Surprised? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well get your ass out and get a real job, but remember this quote from Dr. Raymond Stantz:

      Personally, I liked the university. They gave us money and facilities. We didn't have to produce anything! You've never been out of college. You don't know what it's like out there. I worked in the private sector. They expect results.

    37. Re: Surprised? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I have worked with a guy who was paid more than me. The difference in our skills was that he could not do the work he was assigned to do, so I had to do it. That is pretty clear evidence that your salary does not always correlate with your skills. Now the question is, how often this is true? Do you think it is impossible for someone with 50k salary to be better?

    38. Re:Surprised? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's true in the UK too. Post-grad students brought in at least £120K/year per warm body and head. But for TA duties, they only got paid £5/hour.
      300 x 120K = £36 million

    39. Re:Surprised? by mikael · · Score: 1

      UK university principals and vice-principals earn megabucks just like drug cartels (around £260,000/year). Prime minister earns around £150K
      Starting salaries for higher education (HE) lecturers range from around £33,943 to £41,709.
      At senior lecturer level, you'll typically earn between £41,709 and £55,998. Head of department earns £70K
      Stipends for a PhD are around £14K/year. TA duties are £5/hour. It was more cost effective Amazon Turking since the minute you do part-time work, you are liable for council tax.

      http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/educ...
      http://blogs.lse.ac.uk/impacto...

      Plumbers earn up to £50/hour or £100K/year.
      http://www.telegraph.co.uk/new...

      --
      Vintage computer adverts: http://www.vintageadbrowser.com/computers-and-software-ads
    40. Re:Surprised? by pjt33 · · Score: 1

      Can any UK Slashdotters give us a UK perspective on this?

      Most PhD students get a grant which gives them enough to eat. But the whole "doing the staff's job for them" business which some Americans complain about does not translate.

    41. Re:Surprised? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But there we are discussing UK!

      Not somewhere with big university stadiums, so stop to be so much self-centered for once.

    42. Re:Surprised? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you're not going into academia then the point of doing a PhD is either:
      1. For the hell of it, it is something you personally want to achieve, or
      2. To gain access to better paid roles after your educational stint

      There's nothing stopping this individual from heading back into academia post-Apple. In fact they will probably more valuable as an educator as they have genuine industry experience rather than the typical classroom knowledge of false assumptions. In the case of option 1 they can still finish it later if they desire and in the case of option 2 they have already achieved their aim. I do not see how they are taking a short-term gain in exchange for potentially long-term gain. If money is the object they are there already and having industry experience of Apple's AI programs on your CV is hardly likely to damage the long-term aspect.

    43. Re:Surprised? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The only time you need "plumbers" is for gas fitting (a specialisation in itself) or fixing up the sewer system because it is literally shitty work. All other stuff can be done yourself in the main. Brazing water pipes isn't that difficult and used to be taught in metalwork class at school - heat, flux and brass rod. As newer places move to poly-pipe the job just gets easier - pipe, hacksaw, glue. Out of all the qualified trades plumbers have the lowest respect, then builders, then sparkies.

    44. Re: Surprised? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I mow lawns and landscape. I make 120k. I work 50 hours per week and finish the day hot, sweaty and happy.

    45. Re: Surprised? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Three years of community college, 20 years experience, $140k per year in Cincinnati, Ohio. Yeah...I'm behind because I took 10 years off after 2000.

    46. Re:Surprised? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Software development and data expert..work 10 hours a week...$140k on the east coast. You need to step up your game.

    47. Re: Surprised? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And, with all that physical activity, you're probably avoiding the track to obesity that is cubicle life. Win-win. Congrats!

    48. Re: Surprised? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Spend your money where your priorities are. The sports departments are part of the university, they're not standalone franchises. Want your school to be known for athletics? Then spend the money there. Want to retain your AI PhD researchers? Then spend your money there.

    49. Re:Surprised? by mjwx · · Score: 1

      Perhaps when they stop paying football and basketball coaches obscene salaries and pay professors and grads what they are actually worth the quality at universities will improve.

      Fixed it for you.

      This is a European University, there are no basketball teams, the best you can hope for is an amateur soccer or rowing team. Maybe Equestrian if there is a lot of Old Money around. We've never tied athletics into academia. If you want to pursue a sporting career, you either need to do it privately I.E. in a league or via a dedicated sporting institute. You dont get a fake degree for playing sports over here.

      --
      Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
    50. Re: Surprised? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So that guy had the skill of getting paid more to do less. Based on your statement that he was getting paid more than you, it appears he actually had the more valuable skill.

    51. Re:Surprised? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      >> PHDs are treated like crappy free labor by universities.
      > Absolutely I wok for a big university

      So they're treating you like a crappy free stir-fry cook, eh?

    52. Re:Surprised? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What I don't get: You have a class of people, say, 30 people, all of whom are paying $1.5k-$3k for the class. Assuming 3 terms per year, 2 classes per week. The class is generating about $1k per class. There's no reason for whoever is teaching to not be making a decent wage if they're teaching 3-4 classes per day.

    53. Re:Surprised? by Hognoxious · · Score: 1

      You dont get a fake degree for playing sports over here.

      Land Economy at Cambridge? A bit of a misnomer since they spend most of their time rowing boats.

      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
  4. With out that generation how will we as a species by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    With out that generation how will we as a species create Rokko's Baselisk?

  5. Can you blame them? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    Universities are turning from being institutions of eductation to political shitshows. Nobody needs that noise if you've got skills and want to actually learn or achieve something.

    1. Re:Can you blame them? by gtall · · Score: 1

      Really? Suppose you want to become an astrophysicist. You'll be wanting years of higher mathematics and physics, and had better be working for some professor who is at the top of some specialty in that field. This isn't the 1900's any longer where someone, say a patent examiner, can come up with a new theory of gravity, just to pick an example at random. Physics has very narrow specialties, you'll be wanting to pick one (two if you are really, really good and can stomach the extra years that will take). Unfortunately, the specialists are working at unis which you'll be needing to get into any actual experiments...if you go the experimental route since you cannot afford the equipment. If you go the theory route, the idea of competing against that crowd by home schooling is ludicrous.

      Want to do quantum physics? You'll be needing those advanced math courses again just to read papers in the field. And you'd better be quite good at it because mathematics is the language of physics. Math alone won't get you there. You'll be needing years of study in the latest physics. That generally gets done at a university because the payoff for physics is so far down the road that people like you cannot see to fund the people doing the work now.

      Chemistry, biology, etc. are similar. Want to be a code monkey the rest of your life. Then go off and program your heart out. However, if you want to work at a company that does drives controls for the machine tool industry, you'll be wanting that engineering degree. Or practice. Of course you won't get a chance to practice because you won't know enough to be allowed to practice on a company's dime, and you cannot buy your own drives controls to practice on since it is way out of your price league. Most computing gets done in fields that are not approachable being a code monkey alone, you'll need domain knowledge. To get that, you'll probably be needing that degree again so you can be taught what you need to learn. But you seem like a self-starter, please pick some field that uses programming to achieve an end but isn't primarily concerned with programming. Go get that domain knowledge, be sure you cover all the bases, and be ready to show any prospective employer your self-taught brilliance.

    2. Re:Can you blame them? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      You miss the point. Of course what you're saying is right but its not a case of 'either or' it's an 'and' type situation here.

      Universities use their education platform to twist the minds of people into their socialist views by claiming its what's best for academia. And then they layer the base fields of science with politically bias propaganda so when you step forward to more complex degrees your chance of success is furnished by these beliefs. Its so bad these days that you see professors holding secret communist get togethers with their students, you know the real dedicated sycophants that will do anything their godly professor says. (Don't tell me its not true I walked in on one of them one day and was shocked to see it in front of me).

      As for the best AI scientists. AI was coined from commercial research (IBM) and its just a replacement of traditional computer sciences with long winded redefinitions of logical programming and expert systems.

      But lets glance past all this and look at the fundamental problem with AI research. It doesn't work. Its a field of science that leads nowhere and corporations need to keep perpetuating different, promoting fear and control in the hope that people run towards these socialist "My government will save me from all of this" type of rhetoric. All the meantime these corporations act as catchers mitts for contracts and subsidies and the streamlining of society to uniformity not just on a national level but on a global level. Just look at the iPhone as the most perfect example of this and the attitude and bias created by Apple's fan base as another.

      But with Apple its worse, because here you have the biggest corporation in the world which a decade ago was going broke. They took government money (subsides) and research develop the iPhone and then use traditional media platforms to introduce the iPhone to the world (just like Gates did with windows). Then after all is said and done and the success came, what did they end up doing? They moved the profits to Ireland to avoid taxes. What a great way to say thank you to the entity that once helped dig them out of a hole in the first place.

      If only what you said was true. I really wish it was. But it isn't, even smart people get tricked and thats whats ironic about it all. You'd think with their high IQs people at these levels could see past it. But no. As the old saying goes, money talks.

    3. Re:Can you blame them? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      For quantum, all of physics, AI software like mathematica will do all of the math for you, but you have to understand it well enough to be able to type in the problem. Journals, books and lectures are all online.

    4. Re:Can you blame them? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not true. This is what Deep Learning / Machine Learning is all about.

      "idiot input in" -> "magic happens" -> "simple data out"

      Anything outside of that becomes lesser AI.

      I.E Complex input means, lesser Deep learning. Assisted formulas needed during the magic phase, less machine learning is needed.

  6. Wow I would have never known by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Company pays more for person to work on a product than a university pays to work on research. News at 11.

    1. Re:Wow I would have never known by DontBeAMoran · · Score: 2

      There's probably a lot less pressure when doing research work.

      I'm reminded of xkcd's #664.

      --
      #DeleteFacebook
    2. Re:Wow I would have never known by TheCastro1689 · · Score: 1

      Reminds me more of this scene from Ghostbusters: https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

    3. Re:Wow I would have never known by Dixie_Flatline · · Score: 1

      Actually, it's MUCH worse than that. Companies pay people much more to do RESEARCH than Universities do. My partner is finishing her PhD, and she's already talked to a few industry people. Her concern that she wouldn't be able to do the research that interests her, or that she wouldn't have the supercomputing resources that her research requires were completely assuaged. Companies want her to do her research, because even blue-sky AI research can and does have practical implications.

      And because she's not doing a bunch of administrative bullshit or writing grant proposals, more of her actual work time will be spent doing research than she would ever be allowed at the University.

      Universities don't just pay less, they heap a bunch of useless garbage work on their professors that has nothing to do with teaching or advancing the field. Why in the world would anyone want that kind of stress?

  7. Mad money by grasshoppa · · Score: 2, Insightful

    If this is important for Universities, maybe they can take some of all that lovely guaranteed student loan money and direct it towards salaries instead of beanbags, crayons, safe spaces and "grounds improvement" and whatever the hell else they spend gobs of that money on.

    --
    Mod me down with all of your hatred and your journey towards the dark side will be complete!
    1. Re: Mad money by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Learn geography - article is about U.K. universities.

    2. Re:Mad money by The+Cynical+Critic · · Score: 1

      I'm pretty sure if you look at university balance sheets you can see that furniture, office supplies, student activities and landscaping aren't that big of a portion of universities' budgets. Payroll and facilities are always way more expensive than those combined. Let's not forget that we not talking about one of american universities that can charge their students obscene amounts of money, we're talking about a UK one where student loans are reasonable and written off after a number of years if you can't afford to pay them (which is probably a great help for a lot of liberal arts people).

      We're not talking about paying researchers practically unlivable wages, we're talking good salaries vs starting salaries of over 100k for people who haven't even graduated yet.

      --
      "Why should I want to make anything up? Life's bad enough as it is without wanting to invent any more of it."
    3. Re:Mad money by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Payscales for UK universities are set nationally, so its difficult for an individual university to decide to pay research staff more. Although there's a little bit of flexibility in this, its at best only +/- one pay grade which will equate to only a few thousand £s per year. To fix this the government,research councils and universities will need to agree to increase the pay rates. They last did this about 10 years ago when the economy was doing well, but pay had fallen behind in real terms for several years. With the last 10 years having seen economic stagnation, austerity and higher levels of public borrowing I don't see this happening again anytime soon.

    4. Re:Mad money by datavirtue · · Score: 1

      One large computer desk to seat four students in the library....$35,000 What. The. Fuck. That's when I knew something was really really wrong. You learn way more working for a college than you do as a student. I was able to do both at the same time and had my exit planned years in advance.

      --
      I object to power without constructive purpose. --Spock
    5. Re:Mad money by Hognoxious · · Score: 1

      I'm pretty sure if you look at university balance sheets you can see that furniture, office supplies, student activities and landscaping aren't that big of a portion of universities' budgets.

      Plus it's the UK, so there probably won't be a premier-league class sports stadium either.

      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
  8. This is the end of Universities by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Why pay tens of thousands for human talent in a classroom when AI Universities can do so for a fraction of the cost? Why would people paying for manicured lawns and dorm rooms?

  9. Re:With out that generation how will we as a speci by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You can start by learning the correct spelling of the word "without".

  10. Not seeing the difference. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Their research was going to be tied up in Patents either way. Before it would have been tied up in University patents, most of which don't return money either to the public, or to the department it came from. Now it will simply be tied up in a Corporate coffer with the same length of time before it will become practically usable for the majority of the populace.

  11. What's the alternative? by chispito · · Score: 1

    What's the alternative? Suppose he completed his PhD. He wasn't going to stay in academia if he could make so much more money in the private sector.

    He probably should have leveled with the school all the same out of courtesy.

    --
    The Daddy casts sleep on the Baby. The Baby resists!
    1. Re:What's the alternative? by Tailhook · · Score: 1

      What's the alternative?

      More money, obviously. Government should step in right now and fund the hell out of AI researchers at university. How ever much it takes. Why did you have to ask that? Your training should have provided this answer almost automatically.

      /s

      --
      Maw! Fire up the karma burner!
    2. Re:What's the alternative? by RightwingNutjob · · Score: 1

      Indeed. Many (some?) places worth their salt will pay their top people to go get their PhDs while avoiding the grad student slave wage.

    3. Re:What's the alternative? by TheRaven64 · · Score: 1

      It's quite surprising to me. Apple's UK machine learning centre is just down the road and they're unusual in that they're the only part of Apple that's allowed to publish research papers. If he's going there, he's almost certainly going to do something that would count towards a PhD, so I'd expect him to stay enrolled, take the salary from Apple, and submit a thesis in a year to get the PhD as well.

      --
      I am TheRaven on Soylent News
    4. Re:What's the alternative? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What if you could learn more at Apple than the university. i learned much more in the real world than the theory of university. Not that I think school doesn't have it's place, but much of that comes down to how motivated you are to learn. STEM education is learning the vocabulary and grammar, but not poetry.

    5. Re:What's the alternative? by Khashishi · · Score: 1

      Yeah, the more surprising thing about this story is that he just disappeared without telling them.

    6. Re:What's the alternative? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      He probably should have leveled with the school all the same out of courtesy.

      Right. As far as I can see that's the only problem here.

      It's not like the University won't be able to find someone else who wants to pursue this apparently lucrative career.

    7. Re:What's the alternative? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Most private companies interested in pure research will partner with a university that is leading the charge into the particular field of study. The only reason I can think that a private company is willing to poach promising researchers is if:
      (a) the university was not willing to accept a partnership,
      (b) the private company is interested in owning all the intellectual property that comes as a result of the research, or
      (c) the corporate need for specialists in the field is exceedingly high that they are willing to poach pure research efforts to gain practical applications practitioners now.

      I suspect that we are looking at (c) in this case.

    8. Re:What's the alternative? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      i learned much more in the real world than the theory of university. Not that I think school doesn't have it's place, but much of that comes down to how motivated you are to learn. STEM education is learning the vocabulary and grammar

      Are you sure?

  12. Science isn't going to fix this by rsilvergun · · Score: 1, Interesting

    The trouble is we're heading for another industrial revolution. And if you know your history that means decades of unemployment until some new tech comes along. We need political and social solutions for the near term. Or we can just accept a declined standard of living.

    --
    Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
    1. Re:Science isn't going to fix this by religionofpeas · · Score: 1

      Or we can just accept a declined standard of living.

      Just like after the first industrial revolution ?

    2. Re:Science isn't going to fix this by careysub · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Or we can just accept a declined standard of living.

      Just like after the first industrial revolution ?

      I am pretty sure you think you are sarcastically "showing up" the previous poster - but, yes, exactly like the First Industrial Revolution.

      The average per capita GDP went up (on average 1.7% a year) but the distribution of income got much more uneven, and the living conditions actually deteriorated for a large share of the population that made up the new working class and pauperism (being destitute) sky rocketed. There is excellent physical documentation of the declining standard of living among working class. Adult heights declined, lives shortened, the portion of recruits unfit for military service shot up. The urban slums and work houses of Dickens time were a product of the FIR.

      --
      Starships were meant to fly, Hands up and touch the sky - Nicky Minaj
    3. Re:Science isn't going to fix this by religionofpeas · · Score: 1

      Yep, there was a transition period of a few decades, before everybody profited from the increased productivity. That doesn't sound like a good reason to stop progress.

    4. Re:Science isn't going to fix this by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Yep, there was a transition period of a few decades, before everybody profited from the increased productivity. That doesn't sound like a good reason to stop progress.

      Do you not read what you reply to? Here is that "everybody profited" again:

      he living conditions actually deteriorated for a large share of the population that made up the new working class and pauperism (being destitute) sky rocketed. There is excellent physical documentation of the declining standard of living among working class. Adult heights declined, lives shortened, the portion of recruits unfit for military service shot up. The urban slums and work houses of Dickens time were a product of the FIR.

      Not "everybody profited". Many of the adults had shortened lives, fewer children, worse living conditions and did not live long enough to even call "progress" a wash.

      You sound like Trump. When he says everybody, he means himself and his already wealthy friends milking the rest of us.

    5. Re:Science isn't going to fix this by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      "Yep, there was a transition period of a few decades, before everybody profited from the increased productivity. That doesn't sound like a good reason to stop progress."

      Oh for a person to admit they're wrong..

      The 'progress' was brought about by unions, violence, and rebellion. It did *not* happen 'organically' as a logical follow-through of industrialization.

    6. Re:Science isn't going to fix this by Maxo-Texas · · Score: 1

      Exactly. It lead to a lot of civil unrest and unnecessary deaths.

      We won't handle it better this time and people have access to greater killing power.

      --
      She was like chocolate when she drank... semi-sweet at first and then increasingly bitter.
    7. Re:Science isn't going to fix this by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Yup, I kneww THAAT"
      Just say it: It won't affect you, so you don't care.

    8. Re:Science isn't going to fix this by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You're a cunt and I hope you die in a gutter. There are better ways to do things.

  13. Stop trying to compete by mysidia · · Score: 1

    Professor is a voluntary role best assumed by those whose passion is to teach and give back;
    pay comparable to working in industry to attract people who are after lots of $$$ is Not one of the benefits of being in academics VS practice.

    Eventually some will come around after their stint in private industry is over, or private industry will start giving back, because
    companies will want more people to be knowledgeable on the subject areas their business relies upon.

    Ultimately some fields are so specialized that the training itself will have a high cost to entry, but this is not the purpose for students to attend traditional university.

    1. Re:Stop trying to compete by TheRaven64 · · Score: 1

      The problem is not that the salary is lower, it's by how much the salary is lower. A lecturer (most junior tenured faculty position in a UK university) makes, after a PhD, about the same amount as a computer science graduate from a decent university makes in their first job. After about 15-20 years, if they make it to professor (the most senior faculty position), they're making about a quarter to a half of what a PhD graduate from a decent university will make after a couple of years in industry (or what someone with a few years of good experience and a decent track record who didn't do a PhD). It's quite easy to find good people who will take a 20-30% pay cut in exchange for academic freedom. It's much harder to find people who will take a 70% pay cut for the same freedom. This is especially true when there are industrial research labs like MSR that pay a lot closer to an industrial salary for very slightly less freedom.

      --
      I am TheRaven on Soylent News
    2. Re:Stop trying to compete by mysidia · · Score: 1

      A lecturer (most junior tenured faculty position in a UK university) makes, after a PhD, about the same amount as a computer science graduate from a decent university makes in their first job.

      Of course.... their first job is not going to be lecturing though; It's going to require developing or using other skills together with what they learned in university in a real-world profitable endeavor.

      This is the path most people should take, unless you have an extremely strong passion to be a lecturer.
      Have a real career, earn the $$$, live the good life, then go BACK to academics in retirement.

    3. Re:Stop trying to compete by thinkwaitfast · · Score: 1
    4. Re:Stop trying to compete by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Professor is a voluntary role best assumed by those whose passion is to teach and give back;

      Teaching is largely a minor role for most professors, thanks to the publish or perish system. As a graduate student, I had to make up for the failures of professors to actually teach - and given the hours I worked, it was done far below minimum wage.

  14. Simple solution. . . by Idou · · Score: 0

    Create AI Scientist AI.

    --
    Sdelat' Ameriku velikoy Snova!
  15. Invisible irony by Geoffrey.landis · · Score: 2

    What? No. Being a PhD means you sit around, have grad assistants teach your class, grade your papers while you get to sit around in a tweed jacket with elbow patches, smoke a pipe and leer at co-eds. And have your grad assistants write your papers and since you're the PhD, your name is on it. Please, it's the cushiest there is. The fact they are even getting paid is an outrage.

    I honestly can't tell if this post is deadpan sarcasm, or if it's serious.

    I wonder if the Anonymous Coward who posted it even knows himself which it is.

    --
    http://www.geoffreylandis.com
    1. Re:Invisible irony by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I still don't know if the poster was being sarcastic or not. The truth is the opposite, those of us who actually do the job put in at least 60 hours a week. The poster has been watching too many Hollywood movies.

    2. Re:Invisible irony by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, you are just a short-sighted moron.

    3. Re:Invisible irony by Archangel+Michael · · Score: 1

      IF you can't tell, then the problem is more real than you really want to admit. And funnier than it should be when called out.

      The line between comedy and serious is often so thin that they tend to blur together.

      When I was younger, I was literally on fire. I make jokes about it all the time (deadpan, gallows humor etc) that people feel awkward about laughing at, because I almost died and yet my jokes are kinda funny. They don't want to laugh (serious) but almost can't help it (funny).

      So to the GP post, "well played sir"

      --
      Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
  16. Not a bad thing... by bradley13 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I'm speaking as a professor at a university, and I don't see why this is a bad thing.

    Research at universities is a good thing, don't get me wrong, But R&D at companies is also valuable. In many cases even more valuable, because companies want research that actually leads to a practical result. Too many university researchers are farting around with abstract stuff of no foreseeable use to anyone, publishing useless results in write-only journals.

    Research at a company is measured on a different scale: can it be used for something? Who thinks we would have multi-core, multi-GHz processors in our pockets, if this hadn't been driven by commercial interests? A few ideas were developed at universities, but practically the entire computer revolution has been driven by commercial research. Maybe it's now time for AI to follow that route as well - we've fiddled with it in academia since the 1950s, but finally - finally - it may lead to something more than niche applications in the real world.

    --
    Enjoy life! This is not a dress rehearsal.
    1. Re:Not a bad thing... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      My university's CS department had precisely one professor who wasn't either stuck in the 1980's with tools and methodology or a pompous idiot with vastly a inflated opinion of their own skill, and he left after about 4 years despite having tenure. I can only assume the situation is the same at most universities nationwide.

    2. Re:Not a bad thing... by Guybrush_T · · Score: 1

      This. Maybe, as the article points out, we need some people to work for the government and think about regulation, but I don't see what universities are doing here.

      In CS (and AI in particular), a huge part of the research in universities is either obsolete, late compared to the industry, addressing the wrong problems, or just plain wrong. I can't say the same for private research papers ; except a few exceptions, they usually make sense. The reason is simple and is tied to the university research system : in universities, researchers work to publish. Writing papers is the end of their work and it's their job to write as many papers as they can (quantity over quality).

      In a company, you write a paper ... when you have time, hence only when you have something that is truly ground breaking, the few exception being some companies doing bullshit papers for PR purposes or trying to sell their product, but this is easy to spot, and it is not the case of Apple, Google, Amazon, Facebook, ...

    3. Re:Not a bad thing... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It sounds like you are saying there is little value in pure research. Please elaborate.

    4. Re:Not a bad thing... by bradley13 · · Score: 1

      "It sounds like you are saying there is little value in pure research. Please elaborate."

      Not at all. But: how many professors in how many universities are doing "pure research"? And how many are writing useless crap in journals that no one reads, because their university says they have to publish X articles a year?

      As for students: the number of doctoral students has exploded over the past 20, 50, 100 years. We are awarding around twice as many doctorates now as compared to 1990. Yet there aren't any more really brilliant people than there ever were, and average students are not going to contribute to fundamental research.

      The current "publish or perish" climate, combined with universities' hunger for grants, means that most professors forced to do "research", whether it makes sense or not. There's a whole industry out there to support pretend research - my email is continuously spammed with invitations from yet-another-journal that no one has ever heard of. This does not advance the state-of-the-art in anything, but it is a great waste of time and resources.

      --
      Enjoy life! This is not a dress rehearsal.
    5. Re:Not a bad thing... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      "Publishing useless results in write-only journals"
      I'll take publishing new findings in the open literature than churning out endless patents with zero technical merit, thank you very much. This is the kind of "research" that companies consider valuable these days because it allows them to extract rent without actually inventing anything or even improving the state of the art.

    6. Re:Not a bad thing... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Exactly, where does the poster think modern AI came from, the convolutional neural network was a university development, only afterwards did companies come it and exploit it. I think this the right way to do, universities do the work at the very edge where applications are less important and conceptual advances are. Let industry develop the application, it has the inclination and funding to do that. Unless government has specific needs, e.g. Military, medical etc, government shouldn't be in the business of inventing stuff for the private sector.

      As for industry funding being productive I'm not so sure. The annual r&d budgets for most of the large IT companies is the same as the entire NSF budget, around 7 billion. I claim that the NSF generates far most output per dollar than a single company does.

    7. Re:Not a bad thing... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "The majority of top AI researchers moved to a handful of companies, meaning their skills and experience were not shared through society." Whaaat? The companies will burn the research? No, they will patent it, and it will be freely available in 20 years. Unless they copyright it Hollywood style, in which case it will be freely available in 100 years.

    8. Re:Not a bad thing... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In many cases even more valuable, because companies want research that actually leads to a practical result.

      And this is the problem, the practical result that these greedy corporations gear it towards is better ad targeting, shifting political conversations, looking like they are doing something about suicides, looking like they are doing something about hate speech, being able to take credit for curing something. These are the amazing lofty goals those jerkwads in silicon valley all have.

    9. Re:Not a bad thing... by mjwx · · Score: 1

      I'm speaking as a professor at a university, and I don't see why this is a bad thing.

      Research at universities is a good thing, don't get me wrong, But R&D at companies is also valuable. In many cases even more valuable, because companies want research that actually leads to a practical result. Too many university researchers are farting around with abstract stuff of no foreseeable use to anyone, publishing useless results in write-only journals.

      Research at a company is measured on a different scale: can it be used for something? Who thinks we would have multi-core, multi-GHz processors in our pockets, if this hadn't been driven by commercial interests? A few ideas were developed at universities, but practically the entire computer revolution has been driven by commercial research. Maybe it's now time for AI to follow that route as well - we've fiddled with it in academia since the 1950s, but finally - finally - it may lead to something more than niche applications in the real world.

      This, and this makes it a cyclical thing. Real AGI/Strong AI is a long way away and still largely theoretical. Weak AI is practically here, so companies behind the ball are throwing stupid money at anyone pretending to be an AI scientist. Once the AI fad has existing products, they'll stop throwing money at anyone and a lot will return to academia because whilst its a smaller paycheque, its a steady one.

      --
      Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
  17. news flash: academia is also proprietary by ebyrob · · Score: 0

    I don't know about London, but here in the states university research generally manages to get in bed with corporations and none of the useful results ever make it back to the public domain anyways...

    Is that the sound of the world's smallest violin I hear?

    1. Re:news flash: academia is also proprietary by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That was a government decision, most academics I know would rather their work be made publicly available especially since it was paid by tax dollars.

  18. Dont worry. by 140Mandak262Jamuna · · Score: 1

    Dont worry about Univs losing Artificial Intelligence experts. They have a lock on Natural Stupidity.

    --
    sed -e 's/Chuck Norris/Rajnikant/g' joke > fact
  19. Not just AI by WrongMonkey · · Score: 2

    Every computationally related academic discipline has this problem. When our grad students get a little bit of bioinformatics/data science experience, they get scooped up by industry. Its very hard to recruit post-docs at salaries that can be covered by grant funded budget.

    1. Re:Not just AI by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Its very hard to recruit post-docs at salaries that can be covered by grant funded budget

      Precisely. So the solution lies within the rules set by the granting bodies. Budgets need to be set to pay more appropriately, not just for the post-docs, but also for the non-faculty staff that keep things working smoothly.

      The other problem is that university rules preclude paying decent salaries also. Not sure why that should be, since it isn't even their money, usually.

      Been there, done that, got the t-shirt (and that's just about the only thing I got)...

    2. Re:Not just AI by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Its very hard to recruit post-docs at salaries that can be covered by grant funded budget.

      To translate few from academic bullshit into English: "Academia is too cheap to pay people what they're worth, but too lazy to hire a grad student." Gee, how sad.

    3. Re:Not just AI by Xyrus · · Score: 1

      When has academia paid as well as the commercial sector?

      --
      ~X~
  20. Can't pay professors, yet spend on sports? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Its OK....they rather spend money on sports and stuff like that. Isn't that what college is about these days?

    1. Re:Can't pay professors, yet spend on sports? by Dragonslicer · · Score: 1

      Most schools spend on sports the money that was income from sports. Eliminating sports at universities isn't going to suddenly give them an extra $50 million to spend elsewhere.

  21. Greedy Capitalism Accentuates Social Problems by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Greedy capitalism and unchecked neoliberalism harms society and accentuates the problems we already have.

    News at 11.

    1. Re:Greedy Capitalism Accentuates Social Problems by RightwingNutjob · · Score: 1

      Paying scientists high salaries is a societal problem now? I suppose the sun that makes plants grow and the rain that waters them is an environmental catastrophe then.

    2. Re:Greedy Capitalism Accentuates Social Problems by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Every dollar not spent on moving social housing into peaceful low-crime neighbourhoods is a dollar spent on slavery.

    3. Re:Greedy Capitalism Accentuates Social Problems by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > Paying scientists high salaries is a societal problem now?

      Offering scientists a career they can live of in dignity *is* a societal problem. Having $BIGCORP slurp all of R&D won't lead to a sustainable society.

    4. Re:Greedy Capitalism Accentuates Social Problems by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Working for $BIGCORP and living in dignity are not mutually exclusive. I've worked with many Phds and they universally complain about university. At $BIGCORP you can build something that you can walk outside and see thousands of people using every day. University, you can get published in PhysRev D and be referenced in the same jurnal 15 years later in a footnote.

    5. Re:Greedy Capitalism Accentuates Social Problems by iggymanz · · Score: 1

      your confused, the liberal schools with their ivory tower internal hierarchy are the ones gouging students with overpriced training and putting them in debt for years. what a racket college education is

    6. Re:Greedy Capitalism Accentuates Social Problems by RightwingNutjob · · Score: 1

      Offtopic, but I'll play: You're advocating a fool's crusade. The reason they're in high crime neighborhoods now is because the sort of people who live there are the ones committing the crimes. Move the projects into a million dollar school district and watch the crime go up. It's happened before the projects were built in the first place. North Philadelphia was a nice low-crime family neighborhood. In came the low-income people, up went the crime rate from them and people they're susceptible to being preyed on by. Like clockwork. Build the projects elsewhere, the same problems will follow.

    7. Re:Greedy Capitalism Accentuates Social Problems by RightwingNutjob · · Score: 1

      Of course it will. Who do you think built out all the power plants and railroads in the US, and in Britain? That's right, private sector companies, which at the time of construction were on the forefront of technology. Learn some history. Preferably the kind not written by Communists.

    8. Re:Greedy Capitalism Accentuates Social Problems by morethanapapercert · · Score: 1
      I have to disagree with that statement. I live in social housing and merely moving the current population to a more desirable location is going to do little or nothing for the social problems found in social housing. I'd say the vast majority of my friends and neighbours are decent, hard working and law abiding folk. (I certainly am one of them) But, the relative proportion of drug users and career criminals to average folk is higher than in say my brothers upper middle class bedroom community. If you move everybody to the new location, you're just moving the problem around. And; if you can somehow separate the sheep from the goats (good luck!) and move only the law abiding folk, all you'll achieve is creating an even nastier social problem in the original neighbourhood because you will have distilled the demographic down to the worst content.

      Properly tackling the problem of poverty and the social ills it breeds is a huge and complex issue. I freely admit I don't know of any cure for poverty, no matter how we structure society, there is always going to be people at the bottom of any scale you pick. What we can do is at least structure our society so that upward mobility is as easy to achieve as possible. And we can collectively choose to spend money on alleviating the worst of the social ills. Universal single pay medical coverage, school breakfast programs, drug and alcohol dependence therapy and so on. Where I live, the government is experimenting with making higher education virtually free for all citizens resident in the province. The idea being that spending public funds on educating folks is a long term investment in the prosperity of the nation and helping poor kids see a way out of poverty and into the middle class.

      As a poverty related aside; I've never understood the lower economic classes in the US who support the (mostly) Republican antipathy towards universal medical care. I mean it's right there in the preamble to the US constitution "We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare , and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America. (emphasis mine) If the People, as determined by polls or elections, decide that universal health care is an integral part of "the general welfare", which seems an easy conclusion to argue in favour of, then one can easily argue that health care is then a constitutional right. Then there is Lincoln's most famous speech where he said "and that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth." Which I take to mean quite clearly that the government OF the people is expressly intended to serve those people.

      --
      I need a wheelchair van for my son. Help me get the word out. https://www.gofundme.com/wheelchair-van-for-jj
  22. Money doesn't matter to everybody by DogDude · · Score: 2

    Money doesn't matter to everybody. I, for example, wouldn't leave a university research job for a private sector job. I have enough money. I can't be the only one.

    --
    I don't respond to AC's.
  23. Why Compete by azadrozny · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I would argue that if academia is completing for labor with industry in a particular area of study, then has advanced the technology enough to get out of the market. It is time to move on to some other area of research.

  24. A word of warning... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    A word of warning...

    AI has a history of going through boom-and-bust cycles; enjoy it while it lasts.

    And remember, despite what anyone tells you, it is not different this time.

    Sorry for sounding so pessimistic.

    1. Re:A word of warning... by mean+pun · · Score: 2

      And remember, despite what anyone tells you, it is not different this time.

      That seems implausible. So many products, ranging from Siri and similar to data mining, rely on AI that there will be a demand for at leat the current level of AI for the foreseeable future. And that completely ignores the strong signals that the current boom is not ending yet.

    2. Re:A word of warning... by religionofpeas · · Score: 1

      It is different this time because the AI applications are actually providing useful solutions that are making money.

  25. See also Uber / Self Driving by 0100010001010011 · · Score: 1

    This is the PhD gamble. You hope that you learn enough and live long enough for your cutting edge research to find a practical purpose.

    Back in 2004 DARPA sponsored a 'small' project to drive cars autonomously. Lots of companies and schools threw warm bodies at the problem and for a few years it some of it was purely theoretical research.

    Then it reached a tipping point that a profitable end was in sight.

    Uber went in and cleaned out CMU's autonomous vehicle department.

  26. finally by supernova87a · · Score: 2, Insightful

    And we're complaining that people with Ph.D.s, who normally go homeless in the real world, are managing to get high paying jobs?? We should be thanking the good fucking lord!

  27. Can't Compete My Ass by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Whenever somebody complains about some market condition and claims they can't compete, they always mean they don't WANT to compete. Whether you're talking about American employers saying they can't get Americans to do the work that illegal immigrants do, or tech giants saying they can't get the talent they need in the United States. What they all mean is that they can't get American employees for the substandard wages they want to pay. They know how the job market works and that if they paid enough there'd be employees to meet the demand. They just don't want to be subject to market forces, which is why they support work visas - it allows them to draw labor from an external market that is independent of the company's actions.

  28. Not an isolated story by stikves · · Score: 1

    There are too many PhD graduates to fill in the open academic positions, even if you were to include temporary and teaching ones. And since industry companies not only offer good salaries, but often also good research opportunities (even if you cannot publish everything that you do), there is obviously a pull into that direction.

    I had very persistent friends who did multiple post-docs, and temporary positions to finally find a full time professor opportunity. I admire their passion. However that route has a lot of sacrifices, especially if you are starting a family.

  29. Academics don't work for salary by Gilgaron · · Score: 1

    I'm not an academic but from looking at their job postings I can only assume they don't work for the salary so much so as it pays their bills while they get to work in academia: their BS positions pay what you can make at fast food and their MS and PhD positions pay what you can make with a BS in contract research.

  30. Surprise Pure R&D costs money by FeelGood314 · · Score: 4, Informative

    Pay the salaries or stop complaining that you lose all your talent. We should be devoting at least a few percent of GDP to pure research. University should be a place for pure research but having our brightest minds chasing grants half the time and doing teaching, marking and committee work another 15 hours a week is a total waste basically means professors do their research for free on their own time. It is so frustrating the way we organize pure research at western universities. The USA also has other institutions that do leading edge research such as NASA and a few others. I can't even think of another famous non-american pure research organization other than CERN.

    Pay has to be competitive. Canada has to be the worst example of this. Canadian math and computer science departments essential are producing engineers for US companies. A friend just messaged me from California, I realized I was the only Canadian born engineer I knew still working in engineering in Canada and I work remotely for a US company! (sample size 100+ Canadian born colleagues from university or work, 200+ engineers I know well enough in Canada to know their background)

    1. Re:Surprise Pure R&D costs money by DNS-and-BIND · · Score: 1

      This is one of the main reasons US immigration policies are so destructive. They act as an attractive nuisance, destroying other countries' intellectual capital so that America, already rich, can get richer. That's it. These talented people are badly needed by their own countries, and they get sucked away because wealthy America can pay them better because it's wealthy. The rich get richer, the poor get fucked, as usual.

      --
      Shutting down free speech with violence isn't fighting fascism. It IS fascism!
    2. Re:Surprise Pure R&D costs money by hazardPPP · · Score: 1

      I can't even think of another famous non-american pure research organization other than CERN.

      The Max Planck Institute(s)? CNRS?

      To me at least it seems that in Germany, research is more concentrated in the institutes (people even do their PhDs there, I think) than in the universities - you have the public-funded Max Planck Institutes and the public/private (industry) co-funded Frauenhofer Institutes.

      In France, you have CNRS, which is a huge publicly-funded research organization, it's hard to get a job there, but once you do, you're more or less set for life. Or so they tell me.

      Having universities as the main engine of research seems to be a more Anglo-Saxon (USA, UK, Canada, Australia...) way of doing things.

      Pay has to be competitive. Canada has to be the worst example of this. Canadian math and computer science departments essential are producing engineers for US companies. A friend just messaged me from California, I realized I was the only Canadian born engineer I knew still working in engineering in Canada and I work remotely for a US company! (sample size 100+ Canadian born colleagues from university or work, 200+ engineers I know well enough in Canada to know their background)

      Canada has good research and education in engineering, but a lack of high-end jobs in the private sector. I don't know what exactly it is (lack of investment? overly conservative investors? not enough entrepreneurs?), but it's very frustrating to see even successful Canadian tech startups relocate their headquarters to the US at some point (I've seen this several times) and essentially become American companies.

    3. Re:Surprise Pure R&D costs money by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well you have two options: pay your people more or forbid your citizens to travel outside of your country.

    4. Re:Surprise Pure R&D costs money by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Math and science departments don't produce engineers. Engineering departments do.

    5. Re:Surprise Pure R&D costs money by Wrath0fb0b · · Score: 1

      Pay the salaries or stop complaining that you lose all your talent. We should be devoting at least a few percent of GDP to pure research.

      We are, it's just moved away from universities and into the private sector.

      My $0.02 (STEM PhD with ~10 published articles, now I work for a big tech co in Silicon Valley): if you want to do better research, stop organizing university research into tiny little fiefdoms. Directors should be able to hire and supervise senior faculty. Senior faculty should be be able to hire and supervise junior faculty as well as grad students. There should be enough program management to get organizations with 100-500 total researchers on the same page and working together towards a common goal. Researchers should be free to actually switch groups instead of being shackled to a grant.

      The current structure is literally a hold over from the Middle Ages. Because everyone is in charge, no one is charge and the brilliance is squandered instead of focused.

  31. Re:With out that generation how will we as a speci by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    And Basilisk. And Roko.

  32. Corporations are desperate by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Corporations are hiring whoever they can in a desperate attempt to not go bankrupt and/or have stockholders fire all the senior management when they discover that the current so-called 'AI' they've been working on all this time is a dead-end technology that will never be any better than it is right now -- and that's pretty goddamned crappy. What we need is real, self-aware, fully conscious, cognitive (i.e. 'thinking') artificial intelligences, and we'll never achieve that on the path we're on right now, nor will we ever, not until we understand how an actual biological brain achieves those things -- and we're nowhere near understanding that. Your dog or cat has a greater ability to think than even the best so-called 'AI' we currently have, and if you don't understand that then you understand nothing about the subject. Therefore: Google and other companies, who have now invested untold millions and countless years developing their dead-end excuse for an AI are desperate for their own survival, and are hoping against hope that throwing more bodies and what money they can beg borrow or steal will somehow give them the results they want -- but they are wrong, they will fail, and this whole 'AI' thing will become just another fad that came and went.

  33. Re:With out that generation how will we as a speci by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You can start by learning the correct spelling of the word "without".

    ... and "Roko" and "Basilisk".

  34. Society wants all the goodies from academia by KramberryKoncerto · · Score: 1

    But it doesn't want to pay the money. So people choose what's better for their lives.

    And to most people who do AI/ML, it's probably the biggest break in their lifetime.

  35. Who cares by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    AI is a joke of a CS specialty and only idiots are attracted to it anyway. Useless fad.

  36. university mission is education by Goldsmith · · Score: 1

    Don't forget that the core mission of any university is education. While schools are performing a lot more research these days, that research is always in the context of training. As a commercial scientist working with a lot of universities, I have been frustrated with the seemingly inefficient policies, facilities, and labor contracting at universities until I realized that good work rightly comes second to good teaching at a school. (For example, "education first" is why students have access to shared facilities that would only be open to specialized full time staff in industry.) It seems obvious when put that way, but it changes the context of discussions like this.

    There are a lot of AI students being picked up out of universities early because of increased demand and general advances in the field. This is great. The universities should be thrilled. They have done a great job getting those folks prepped for roles in the economy outside of academic training.

    That can be frustrating to the PIs (professors) at universities who want to focus on research, but they also need to remember that research is their secondary goal.

    Fields that find economic purpose don't disappear from universities, and basic research doesn't stop. There's never been an academic field that ended because it was too financially successful. The organizations that lead the way change.

    1. Re:university mission is education by Dixie_Flatline · · Score: 1

      I don't meet many professors that are disgruntled about teaching, they're all run down by the wide array of administrative duties that they're compelled to participate in. My partner's supervisor turned down a position as the head of a research group several times until he politically couldn't do it any more, and at that point, he effectively disappeared from the lives of his students. He knew it would happen and he still tries his hardest, but at this point he's being paid to do work he never wanted, and neither of those things are research or teaching.

  37. Football Coaches by ThurstonMoore · · Score: 1

    Maybe we should rethink paying fucking football coaches multi millions of dollars a year and use that money to pay teachers.

    1. Re:Football Coaches by ConceptJunkie · · Score: 1

      The coaches' pay is only commensurate with the money they help bring in by being good coaches. The universities know who butters their bread. It's hard to blame them for that.

      --
      You are in a maze of twisty little passages, all alike.
    2. Re:Football Coaches by rogoshen1 · · Score: 1

      or maybe stop building residential palaces while they're at it. every university I've ever seen is *ALWAYS* building some building or another. meanwhile tuition hikes are constant, administrator (not necessarily faculty) salaries are bonkers high.

       

    3. Re:Football Coaches by ThurstonMoore · · Score: 1

      Yeah, MIT would be nothing without a football team.

    4. Re:Football Coaches by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But it is a catch-22.

      Don't build the new facitilites - libraries, dorms, whatever, and the best students go elsewhere.

      Until the students (and parent who often foot the bills) look beyond the bling the Universities will be forced to play the game.

  38. Awwww pooor wittle babbbbyyys by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Where's my small violin?

    These universities who rake in the cash are upset they are loosing their AI minds? It's a free market. If you need the skills you need to pay for it.

    This also demonstrates how universities in general are slowly becoming obsolete with their programs. Force your students to take a bunch of completely irrelevant time wasting garbage courses and watch them go elsewhere to do their research.

  39. No problem in the US ... by CaptainDork · · Score: 1

    ... because it's no longer, "academia," it's "Student Loan Corporation."

    We don't suffer from brain-drain because the education system, from bottom to top is shit. Americans are not prepared for university by the lower grades.

    "Foreigners" are prepared and take their skills to other countries.

    We suffer from pocket book drain and schools make money, not from teaching efforts, but from interest rates.

    --
    It little behooves the best of us to comment on the rest of us.
    1. Re:No problem in the US ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      this article was based on a Professor at a EUROPEAN UNIVERSITY stating this as a problem.

      RTFA

  40. Current PhD by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    I'm currently a PhD student at a major research university on the west coast.

    I can confirm that we are not paid well and are taken advantage of. Goal post shifts, demands to write manuscripts prior to being "allowed" to work on dissertation work, little support on things that are unrelated to the actual "work" that I'm supposed to be doing (like technical challenges, software, etc.). I pulled in a $20,000 fellowship this year and instead of adding to my salary, my advisor just used it to offset his total costs, and I walk away earning the same. I make ~$28,000 before taxes.

    I have already turned down two jobs with six-figure salaries, and I don't even work in AI. My work involves lots of GPU computing in a very specific sector of medicine. I have stayed because of personal reasons (although I did genuinely quit and walk away early on for one year only to return later).

    The problem is systemic: it's not any one professor's fault, but every professor and university is complicit in the problem. Some are worse than others though (cough my advisor cough).

    I have no sympathy whatsoever when they lose people. Until they wake up and realize that they've basically had access to the most highly skilled workforce essentially for free for decades nothing will change. Maybe this will be the wake up call they need.

    1. Re:Current PhD by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      they call you grad slaves and they use you as personal slaves to further THEIR research. Then they take YOUR work, publish it under THEIR NAME and if you are lucky put your name in at the end...

      Fuck them. In the ass. With a splintered piece of lumber. and no lube.

  41. Tough by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Wow someone might need to pay a valued academic a decent salary, so sad!

  42. Pantic has been out of the real world too long. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "Pantic said the majority of top AI researchers moved to a handful of companies, meaning their skills and experience were not shared through society."

    Last I checked, the majority of grads we've hired at my company have learned a hell of a lot more useful skills and experience in the 4 years after college than the 4 years they spent there.

    Newsflash buddy: COLLEGE ISN'T THE ONLY PLACE TO LEARN. Furthermore, the people who go to college/university expecting to be spoon-fed information and have no skills in independent research or original thought are the least useful people around when it comes to innovation.

    1. Re:Pantic has been out of the real world too long. by barbariccow · · Score: 1

      I'd hire someone with 4 years of work experience over 4 years of college experience any day. You wouldn't have to train them how to do the most basic things.

    2. Re:Pantic has been out of the real world too long. by thinkwaitfast · · Score: 1

      This exactly. Companies that I've worked for were far ahead in technology than any of the schools that I attended. Additionally, we were better funded and fed data and results back to professors quite often.

  43. Finally! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I am HAPPY to see people jumping ship and leaving their Masters to do the work themselves!

    For so many decades graduate students have been treated as slaves that this comes as happy news to me that now finally graduate students SOMEWHERE have some level of power to affect their own careers other than relentlessly and thanklessly slaving under professors who then take the fruits of the grad students labors and present that as their own!

  44. Internal Universities by DalM · · Score: 1

    I'm kind of surprised this hasn't happened already, but I imagine that the future of computer science education is largely going to be basically on-the-job training. Corporations will have their own in-house colleges and teach and train their own future work force. Companies relying on outside non-profit orgs to spend 4+ years training their employees is woefully inefficient.

  45. Universities Just as Bad as HR by sycodon · · Score: 1

    Universities can and have been just as bad as HR when it comes to finding talent and building a "workforce".

    In business, HR is usually looking for unrealistic requirements and filter out people who are probably more than qualified, but lack experience or requirements in specific area of length or experience. I experienced this many, many years ago when I had 5 years .net experience, not 7. Stupid. ( Thankfully, those fuckers went out of business. Fuck'm)

    Academics does the same thing when it comes to admitting people to advanced degree programs.

    Have a crappy undergrad record, but nevertheless excel in industry and work in cutting edge technology? Too bad. They look to what you did 20 years ago not what you are doing now.

    Then there's the stupid test they want you to take. Do they have an ACT for A.I?

    Don't have the means to quit your day job? Well, the University says, Fuck You, you ain't getting in.

    Then, of course is the cost. People with homes, kids, spouses that spend money like water, aren't going to be able to afford ten of thousands of dollars.

    Universities are living in yesteryear. They need to wake up and understand what's going on with talented people today.

    --
    When Fascism comes to America, it will call itself Anti-Fascism, and tell you to give up your guns.
    1. Re:Universities Just as Bad as HR by h4ck7h3p14n37 · · Score: 1

      Then, of course is the cost. People with homes, kids, spouses that spend money like water, aren't going to be able to afford ten of thousands of dollars.

      A few years ago I considered going back to school for a Masters degree. It wasn't so much that I wanted the degree as I wanted to take a break from a job that was taking me nowhere. I attended an informational session and discovered that I would need to take something like 9 classes at a cost of $5,000 per class. Class size was 20 students, so we're collectively paying $100,000 so a professor can lecture at us for 10 weeks? The economics just don't make sense.

      The most insulting part of it was that the majority of courses were re-hashes of what I studied as an undergraduate computer science student. I decided that a Masters degree just didn't make any sense and started looking for another job.

    2. Re: Universities Just as Bad as HR by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Have you looked at how much the presidents of universities make? It's up in the same range as corporate CEOs. Universities today - including state universities - appear to exist for the purpose of business, not for the purpose of academics. Business is all about minimizing costs while maximizing revenue. Good luck retaining talented students with the current university fiscal priorities.

    3. Re:Universities Just as Bad as HR by sycodon · · Score: 0

      A-Fucking-Men.

      Universities are out of control. They are the embodiment of the entitlement mentality even when you remove the fact that most students today are SJW victims with little no interest in learning anything useful. I am actually kind of glad that my son is in college now because the competition he faces sucks.

      --
      When Fascism comes to America, it will call itself Anti-Fascism, and tell you to give up your guns.
    4. Re: Universities Just as Bad as HR by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In terms of pure greed, university administrators make the banksters look like Mother Teresa.

    5. Re:Universities Just as Bad as HR by mikael · · Score: 1

      You did the right thing. I was working at a company when their two architects left for a Silicon Valley company and the board of drectors decided not to promote anyone any further. Everyone on our team found themselves room 101'ed (Neither fired nor given work to do) and beamed themselves abroad. Tried applying to local companies, but they weren't interested, since I didn't have the exact platform experience they were looking for (UNIX vs. Solaris/Windows). I decided to do a MSc, It let me learn C++, STL, UNIX, Visual Studio and gave me a lifeboat for a year. But, after a year, all the local companies weren't interested because I had been out of industry for a year. All of the course materials was exactly the same for their Honours year students.

      There are several kinds of MSc (MSc by study, MSc by pure research and MSc by industrial sponsorship). MSc by pure research involves spending six months doing research and six months writing up. MSc by industrial sponsorship involves working on a problem at a company for six months then writing up. These were a bit risky at the time. One student got industrial sponsorship for his MSc, but hit a brick wall when the university and company squabbled over where he would do his thesis. University wanted on their campus. Company wanted him in their offices. He ended up having to drop out. Neither party got the money. If you have done a Computer Science degree, then you are better off doing a MSc in something different like Mathematics/Physics at university that has a large research department in that field.

      --
      Vintage computer adverts: http://www.vintageadbrowser.com/computers-and-software-ads
  46. omg by barbariccow · · Score: 1

    omg! People with marketable skills are getting hired? WHAT HAS THE WORLD COME TO?????

  47. School is for fools by h4ck7h3p14n37 · · Score: 1

    If you're any good, then you're working in industry. I learned that lesson as an undergrad.

    1. Re:School is for fools by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      As the saying goes "Those who can, do. Those who can't, teach."

  48. Get rid of athletics. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    And spend that money on salaries. Any student who needs a sport fix, join your local rec league.

  49. Is this real AI or fake AI? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Given that the term "AI" gets slapped on everything, these companies could just be looking for really good algorithms and not true AI (which would probably take a while to create).

    Word verification: convoke

  50. AI bubble? by Tony+Isaac · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Every company these days thinks they need AI.

    This reminds me of how companies have been flocking to data warehousing during the past few years. They all want it. They don't know why they want it, but they've heard it's powerful, and that means they have to have it. Meanwhile, many of those same companies haven't really mastered the fundamentals of their relational databases.

    The result of this hype is that anybody who can convince a clueless hiring manager that they know something about AI...can get hired for exorbitant amounts of money.

    Yes, AI is good for many things. Companies like Apple and Google and IBM are putting it to good use. But many companies are just jumping on the bandwagon. Like all bubbles, this one will burst at some point.

    1. Re:AI bubble? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Interestingly, Datawarehouses are the wrong solution for your data/BI-problems, but has been sold as the way to get processing, reports, personalization, "BI", etc. Promises disregarding all the overcomplications under the hood, the constant maintenance and firefighting nightmares just to keep normal operations, the ludicrously complex and expensive upgrades, software, hardware, etc. This up to the current state where we're focussing on API, Gateways and Services, but completely neglecting the dataflow they're supposed to facilitate, the lifeblood of any organization being data!

      Meanwhile, you don't see the successful huge companies depend on Datawarehouses, but create their own specialized data-message/storage systems instead.

      Point this out, and risk getting stomped on or disregarded. "Culture" my ass!

  51. huh? by HermMunster · · Score: 1

    First, there's no such thing as artificial intelligence, not in the true sense of the word "intelligence". The machines are just good at interpretive and predective logic. AI's definition was changed. In the true sense AI means artificial and intelligent. Artificial is true, but intelligence is missing.

    Second, why are Universities calling these guys scientists? They are just a specialization in the field of comp-sci. Technically you could call them scientists, but you'd need to call anyone graduating with a comp-sci degree a scientist.

    Third, they can't compete? You mean they spend so much money on other areas, such as their education of the students, that they can't afford to pay the high prices? Or is it that the students that they are taking advantage of are leaving for private business?

    --
    You can lead a man with reason but you can't make him think.
    1. Re:huh? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How to start?

      No one cares about your personal definition of AI. The pragmatic -if informal- definition, used by people doing it and people investing in it (people who matter, i.e. not you) is "computers doing cognitive tasks that only humans used to be able to do well". If that sounds like moving goal posts, it is. Decades ago AI was computers beating humans at chest using minmax, now its computers beating human at GO using reinforment learning, and computers driving cars. Tomorrow? Who knows.

      Second, its because it is science, with a solid and complex mathematical background. Just because you are ignorant of it, doesnt mean it doesnt exist.

      Third, its a bit more nuanced. I dont know if they dont want to or can't pay competitive wages for top academics in AI. They pay millions for football coaches in the USA, or so I hear. There are some businesses that hire AI researchers while allowing them to continue their academic career. I dont want to do name dropping, but you can search for it. Universities arent entitled to anyone's work, but at the same time the Google and Microsoft of this word owe a lot to academic research given freely.

  52. I'm right here buddy. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I qualify according to your requirement. What would you hire me for?

    1. Re:I'm right here buddy. by barbariccow · · Score: 1

      Whatever your skills make you apt to do. I never completed college, I had several years experience by the time I went to college. Took me 2 years there before I really accepted that I was just going into debt, never going to get paid more, and that my experience already qualified me without a diploma for any tech company Id want to work for. Even when I had 10 years of experience a few companies said they needed a college diploma, one even described itself as an "ivy league company." Would have never applied if I knew they thought an expensive piece of paper meant more than being able to produce results.

  53. Goodbye Slashdot by LightningBolt! · · Score: 1

    After many years of reading and posting on this Slashdot, I'm out. The only people remaining here seem to be angry, old, self-centered Ayn-Rand-loving baby-men who begrudge everyone, whom they blame daily for their sad empty lives.

    It's been fun but I won't miss it.

    --
    Old people fall. Young people spring. Rich people summer and winter.
    1. Re: Goodbye Slashdot by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Don't let the door hit ya, where the good lord split ya.

      Oh yea, also, you must be new here.

    2. Re:Goodbye Slashdot by easyTree · · Score: 1

      angry, old, self-centered Ayn-Rand-loving baby-men who begrudge everyone, whom they blame daily...

      Your tone implies that this is somehow inappropriate :P

  54. BS - schools can compete by guruevi · · Score: 2

    If they really needed that person, they really can compete. 5 times less than a 6-figure salary implies you were paying probably around 20-30k which is about average for a PhD student.

    That particular college has a $167M endowment, others in the US have billion dollar endowments. But yeah, they can't pay $100k for a good researcher.

    --
    Custom electronics and digital signage for your business: www.evcircuits.com
    1. Re:BS - schools can compete by Njovich · · Score: 1

      The salaries offered by Google, Microsoft, etc. to higher level AI researchers are actually closer to 500k currently. Your point still stands though.

    2. Re:BS - schools can compete by guruevi · · Score: 1

      Please let me know where I can find those job postings. Most AI research jobs I can find are in the area of $75-100k and that is with companies like Ford, Intel, Microsoft etc.

      --
      Custom electronics and digital signage for your business: www.evcircuits.com
  55. For about 80 years, yes by rsilvergun · · Score: 1

    there were decades of poverty brought on by job displacement until the economy caught up. New automation tech put people out of work but it didn't necessarily employ them. They don't teach you about that in high school because a) the books try to keep an upbeat pro-America tone and b) you're lucky to get 20 pages on the topic.

    Where do you think the two World Wars came from?

    --
    Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
    1. Re:For about 80 years, yes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > Where do you think the two World Wars came from?

      Germany?

  56. AIing by tomhath · · Score: 1

    Kind of like requiring all students to learn "coding". Next they'll need to know how to "AI"

  57. Welcome to the Free Market by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    We no longer need socialized research in AI. There is no need for government to prop up this industry because there is actually a market for it. There is no reason Universities need to have monopolies on research when the free market will pay for it.

    99% of research that happens in the University welfare system is irrelevant and boils doing to a solution looking for a problem.

    1. Re:Welcome to the Free Market by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      A limited market, a big, yet limited market. Take language translation, the worlds biggest let down if you ask me. And the broader the database gets the less affective translation is (I speak more than one language and can attest that it has about 50% success rate, you get the overall meaning of whats being said but your doing so giggling at how Google coins it all together).

      As for speech recognition, that works quite well. I see AI similar to gaming that once you build the engines to run the games its only textures and game play to worry about. AI which really isn't and never will true intelligence because its just computational heuristics. It will just sit in its box and for the next 10 years or so wont move any further, it will be only incrementally refined and yes corporations will find different ways to sell it.

      Nevertheless, it is what it is. We just need the hype to die just a tad more.

  58. Universities compete on Interest by Roger+W+Moore · · Score: 2

    If this is important for Universities, maybe they can take some of all that lovely guaranteed student loan money and direct it towards salaries

    A university is never going to be able to compete on salary with companies like Apple. Instead universities compete on interest. You can work on groundbreaking, curiosity-driven research that industry usually cannot afford to take a risk on. For example, I'm a particle physicist and get to work at places like CERN trying to understand the fundamental nature of matter while my brother, who is also a physicist, builds better hair dryers. He earns far more than I do and has a huge research budget but it's nowhere near enough to make me even vaguely consider a career change. The reward for my job is not

    However, in a few cases like AI the upside potential is so huge that companies like Apple can take a risk on these types of project which, with the higher salaries they can offer, will make them irresistible. I don't really see how this is a problem though. It might make things harder in the short term for university researchers but in the longer term, it will mean more students choose to take CompSci giving them a larger supply of students so that they can cope with losing a few.

    1. Re:Universities compete on Interest by Dixie_Flatline · · Score: 1

      It's a completely different problem with AI/Machine Learning right now. ML people can work for private industry, have access to enough big iron to get their work done, do the things that interest them, and never have to do some BS administrative thing or organise a conference or write a grant proposal. Even when companies 'only' offer 20% time for your own research, that's still arguably more pure research time than you get at most CS departments. The only thing that you're not actively doing when you work for industry now is teaching, but even then, you'll have plenty of time to mentor junior programmers and researchers if that's your jam.

    2. Re:Universities compete on Interest by philmarcracken · · Score: 1

      Somehow it tickles me to think your brother earns more than you to blow hot air.

  59. Pizza time! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    There is a huge market inflation of PhDs in liberal arts who can barely get jobs as janitors because they lack marketable skills.

    STEM may be different, but what we are witnessing is the death of the university. The giant higher education scam propped up by government-issued loans is imploding due to a lack of fiscal sustainability. In the coming decades, we will see these universities start to fall like dominos. Speaking of Dominos, I hope these unemployed intelligentsia know how to make pizza.

  60. Re: Missing generation of academics... by robbo · · Score: 2

    Yeah, fuck them. All of the up-side to being an academic disappeared more than a decade ago. If they think salary is the *only* thing theyâ(TM)re not winning at, theyâ(TM)ve got their collective heads up their asses.

    --
    So long, and thanks for all the Phish
  61. Force them to stay by JDOHERTY · · Score: 1

    The social contract is that they complete their studies and publish unrestricted research and provide free intellectual property in return for subsidized education. Therefore they are in violation of this contract. So force them to complete their studies and provide their labor free-of-charge, from jail or any handy gulag if necessary. To all according to their needs, from all according to their abilities.
    We can not allow self interest to stand in the way of society.

  62. Universities are not companies by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    So in principle they can't compete because they are educational institutions.

  63. Re: Missing generation of academics... by cayenne8 · · Score: 1

    Yeah, fuck them. All of the up-side to being an academic disappeared more than a decade ago. If they think salary is the *only* thing they're not winning at, they've got their collective heads up their asses.

    When the amount of money is 5x the amount the universities can pay...at that point, it IS pretty much all about salary.

    --
    Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
  64. Wrong. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Of all the universities in the USA, only 20 schools break even. The rest LOSE money.

  65. Re:Missing generation of academics... by mikael · · Score: 1

    AI is the special case. It grew from machine vision for self driving cars and robotics, to Big Data data mining (pharmaceuticals, financial derivatives, astronomy and medical), natural language processing of news feeds, to image processing for film and gaming.

    --
    Vintage computer adverts: http://www.vintageadbrowser.com/computers-and-software-ads
  66. How the UK failed by AHuxley · · Score: 1

    The failure of the UK can be found in decades of spending on experiments.
    The first was the overspend on the Skynet military communications satellite https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
    In the end the UK had to buy into imported US tech and was using US systems. After trying to buy into and recreate it own domestic version of most of what the USA mil had done.
    The UK mil, industrial and education complex had to suffer budget cuts to pay back for all the spending on Skynet.
    The second bright idea was the Computer Literacy Project https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
    Trying to place a new computer into average schools so very average students could use a computer.
    Great for schools and teachers but that removed focus on advanced computing at the university level.
    With decades of UK funding lost to both the mil and education, the US moved on with funding its best students and was able to fully fund its best academics.
    The UK spent its funding on other projects and now wonders why its best academics decades later don't have the support they need.

    The USA had the correct idea. Give very average students text books, calculators. Offer some computers to the best students. See how they test in math, get the best of the best to well funded US universities.
    Spend more on the students who can show they can study.
    The UK spent its funding on mil projects, very average students and new computers. The average students did not do great. The needed university funding was lost for a generation.
    The best conditions and wages also got set aside for the GCHQ after all the 1950-70's poor working condition issues. Good wages was seen as a one way to ensure gov/mil workers and later contractors did not get attracted by offers to spy for other nations.
    That was more funding removed from academics and lost to much better working conditions for the security services.
    Other nations just poured their funds into their best academics and top universities after testing their students to ensure they could "study".
    The UK spent its funding on trying to get average students to understand computers.
    Years later that generational change in funding has its results. Average students recall they had to copy code from a book into a computer.
    The best students recall their funding been reduced and now look to other nations that really can support the best academics with the best wages.
    Take your genius to more supportive nations like the US and enjoy full funding and real freedom.

    --
    Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
  67. Re: Missing generation of academics... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    No it's not. If you're being offered that salary you can take it at anytime. Once you're earning enough to meet you're needs other perks of jobs become more attractive. What's the point of earning money from a job that makes you suicidal or where you don't have any time to enjoy life. Sometimes taking a paycut to enjoy life or allow for an even better opportunity is the best option.

  68. Re: Missing generation of academics... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Different people have different perspectives. Some people may look at it like: max income now = retire earlier/better

  69. Re:Missing generation of academics... by K.+S.+Kyosuke · · Score: 1

    Dots are not operators in ANY OOP language you silly fuck!

    Sound like a bold statement.

    OK, sound even bolder now.

    --
    Ezekiel 23:20
  70. Re:Missing generation of academics... by K.+S.+Kyosuke · · Score: 3, Interesting

    AI is the special case. It grew from machine vision for self driving cars and robotics

    Did you just erase several decades of AI research in one fell swoop?

    to Big Data data mining

    That's more like statistics. That doesn't inform your cognitive models in any way, and one of the huge things in AI is forming improved cognitive models. I don't quite see where there's a contribution in AI from big data in this particular area.

    --
    Ezekiel 23:20
  71. similar thing happened in 1980s by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Lot of AI faculty and students went expert system startups.
    Most failed.

  72. Re:Missing generation of academics... by mikael · · Score: 1

    Those are the areas that I know are in demand. I've seen job adverts for salaries going up to $500K, but only for someone from a leading university, with publications and wanting to run a research department.

    --
    Vintage computer adverts: http://www.vintageadbrowser.com/computers-and-software-ads
  73. If AI succeeds, no more academia will be required by ffkom · · Score: 1

    If all the hyped AI research reaches its ultimate goal - true, super-human intelligence - then it is not a problem that there's a "lost generation" in academia. Because once the machines are better an humans at thinking, they will do the research stuff and tell the puny humans how to slave away in order to retain their right to exist.

    And if the AI research does not succeed, much less research in that area will be on demand / financed anyway.

  74. Re: Missing generation of academics... by Srin+Tuar · · Score: 1

    exactly; enough money = live how you like, never work again.

  75. Re:Surprised? You're missing two things. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    1. This guy was scooped up for big money by someone looking for STEM knowledge. Not Liberal Arts. Not middle earth-er english majors NOT FINE ARTS or get a degree so you can get pawed by a producer...but something of practical use. The Indians and Pakistanis and Chinese and Russians get it...and will continue to do so...while they wait for our next innovation so they can move forward...

    2. He went flying like a bat out of hell to the United States where OPPORTUNITY STILL EXISTS AND IS AGRESSIVELY SOUGHT without crushing taxes and even with a "build the wall" immigration policy which is laughable compared to the English immigration system. Oh yeah...and he'll be working on AMERICAN SOIL paying AMERICAN businesses and therefore...AMERICAN TAXES..supporting AMERICAN INFRASTRUCTURE...

    Can it be all you corporate IT outsourcing foreign labor supporting Democrats and Global Marketers might have misjudged the current policy? HMMM..would he have jumped as quickly under a Clinton Administration Economy? Guess we'll never know eh? Of course we can guess what an English PHD would be worth in America...that must be why he stayed..oh, he didnt....

  76. Re: Missing generation of academics... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I've contemplated this perspective a lot: earning a lot now and chasing the pay or living.

    I've decided that for me... life is short, time isn't guaranteed, and I'll be far less able/healthy to travel freely when I'm older. I took a cut in pay for a lot of flexibility and I have to say, although I don't have as many pretty and shiny objects as my peers (who, admittedly, I occasionally become envious of) I'm financially stable including retirement and live with virtually no stress while enjoying my work. Sure I'd love more pay but the balance isn't quite what it is now. I'll probably jump back in the rat race soon with my next upcoming position move to see if I'm making a mistake.

  77. Re: Missing generation of academics... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I'm a bit removed from AI so I'm certainly not current with the latest most trendy neural networks, but from my earlier work with neural networks, it's not obvious to me what has changed with respect to the underlying cognitive model.

    There are some newer approaches but from what I understand, most models still use the same classic cognitive model (Which I felt was flawed at the time) or they optimized aspects of that model for quicker/more efficiemt computation in specific problem domains (CNNs for many CV related provlems).

  78. Re: Missing generation of academics... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    No mate, I'm racing right now and I'm stressed to the bone, I do not think that you are making any error, as a matter of facts I'm searching a way to get out this shitty situation I got myself into. The sad truth is that after a life of scrambling and fighting to come out "at the top" if you somehow desire to slow down a bit and have some time for yourself you will be seen by your peers and your employer as a failure, not worth to invest on or give a chance to try other career path.

  79. Meanwhile by n329619 · · Score: 1

    Housing took $50,000 off of his $100,000 salary.

  80. Re: Missing generation of academics... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Found the Hillary Clinton supporter! Seriously dude, fuck off back to your safe space. The humans are talking.

  81. Re:Missing generation of academics... by EndlessNameless · · Score: 1

    The glut of academics happens when a field goes from hot to not-hot. In 10-20 years, a lot of people will be "studying to work in AI".

    By then, there will be quite a few lower-level jobs and a fairly saturated job market. The hardest parts of the new field will solved, and the bulk of the work will be applying those solutions to a business- or industry-specific function. The same thing happened with robotics/automation over the last 20 years.

    There will still be high end work, of course, but the distribution will resemble the legal profession---a few rock stars will make high-six figures or even millions per year, but the vast majority of jobs will support an upper middle class lifestyle. At this point, the relatively secure and relaxed academic environment will become an appealing alternative to the rat race, and the glut will become the status quo once again.

    --

    ---
    According to the latest ruleset, this post should be modded as Vorpal Flamebait +5.
  82. ...and the problem is...what? by geowash01 · · Score: 1

    I fail to see a problem. Perhaps it's news to some academics that human begins respond to incentives, but what would they propose? Instituting an internal passport system and controlling free movement?

  83. Re: Missing generation of academics... by Ol+Olsoc · · Score: 2

    Yeah, fuck them. All of the up-side to being an academic disappeared more than a decade ago. If they think salary is the *only* thing theyâ(TM)re not winning at, theyâ(TM)ve got their collective heads up their asses.

    Once upon a time, a job at a University (at least here in th e US) wouldn't be the highest pay, but there was usually a decent retirement plan, and the work was pretty stable.

    Now Universities have major problems. As tuitions raised by double digit percentage every year, because parents were hypnotized that their children would end up living under a bridge if they didn't have a degree, most degrees don't mean anything at all - no job prospects.

    This allowed the Universities to add more and more management and accountants, until professors and researchers were a minority of employees. So those folks sucked up money at an alarming rate.

    So there goes any hope of decent compensation, and there goes the decent pension exchanged for 401K type programs. Of course, the multiple levels of management and accountants only knows one thing - you need many more levels of management and even more accountants. Buh-Bye Overhead. My once generous budget for professional development and requirements to pursue it ended up turning into "I read a web page about a process" in the end.

    The final nail in this coffin is that Universities have been largely taken over by third wave feminists. You have to sit and listen to be told that as a man, you are a rapist, and that anything a woman decides is sexual harassment is sexual harassment, and you will lose your job.

    All in all, a pretty poisonous atmosphere. Where I once would suggest to anyone to pursue a career at University, I now not only say you don't want a career there, but you would be better off getting an online degree.

    --
    The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
  84. Re: Missing generation of academics... by Megol · · Score: 1

    It may seem dark but if you just took your head out of your ass it'd look brighter.

  85. Re:Missing generation of academics... by Megol · · Score: 1

    Nope. It grew from symbolic processing into a hyped thing that would revolutionize everything. And then it failed.

    Research shifted to less impressive goals but including (yes!) self driving vehicles. Military robots that is - due to DARPA sponsorships mostly. It didn't go anywhere. Some of the research tried to do important but less hard tasks - expert systems for instance. A lot of rules with either a yes/no tree or in some cases an inference engine. That worked but not to the extent the hype had claimed.

    Neural nets is another thing that have been used for pattern matching as have misc. types of fuzzy logic. Fuzzy logic have been in shipping consumer goods (e.g. washing machines). The problems with neural nets have been that they require much computational power, that they are almost impossible to debug and that they doesn't work well on a lot of problems. So there have been fixes for some problems but no general proof that they do what they are claimed to do. Neural nets aren't new and the only thing (unless I missed something really fundamental) different now is that there are more computational power available.

    The difference between mere pattern matching and true AI is real understanding of the concepts the machine handles by the machine. While some AI proponents like to claim there's a sequence of goal-post moving (when AI can do X critics claim that a true AI must do Y too) I see it as being realistic. A pattern matcher isn't the same as something intelligent.

  86. Re:Missing generation of academics... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Self-driving cars? Hell, I'd be happy if the AI guys could invent a traffic light that's smart enough not to make me wait when there's no cross traffic for blocks around.

    Goddamn things are stupid as shit!