Pinned Tweet
Postdoc doesn't make much sense for industry.
After postdoc, you’re clearly overqualified for entry roles and still under-qualified for manager roles.
1. You compete against applicants who already have years of industry experience.
2. You become overqualified for entry positions in 95% of the cases. Even PhD is considered an ‘over-qualification’ for many entry positions.
3. You can’t land higher positions because they are normally NOT available to those without industry experience. Coming from academia, it’s really hard to secure a managerial position in the corporate world.
4. Your postdoc skills could be very useful for some specific R&D roles, especially if they fit it precisely. But how many such roles exist?
Basically - unless there is a perfect fit, it’s really hard to convince companies that they need you because of your academic experience.
❗️A postdoc makes sense WHEN:
0. You want to stay in academia.
1. Your personal situation requires it (immigration, family, etc).
2. You want to make or join a startup based on your research experience.
3. Your postdoc is in partnership with industry. Here, the partnership should be setting you on the industry track, not purely academic.
4. You are from fundamental research, can’t find an industry role and want to get hands-on experience in applied fields as a postdoc.
📍 Important:
I discuss the academia / industry divide with the top industry recruiter:
“Academia vs Industry: A Recruiter Gets Brutally Honest”
youtu.be/xBGfu-rUg34
Watch it even if you want to stay in academia.
You will understand how industry thinks about academics at a completely different level.
—
After postdoc, you’re clearly overqualified for entry roles and still under-qualified for manager roles.
1. You compete against applicants who already have years of industry experience.
2. You become overqualified for entry positions in 95% of the cases. Even PhD is considered an ‘over-qualification’ for many entry positions.
3. You can’t land higher positions because they are normally NOT available to those without industry experience. Coming from academia, it’s really hard to secure a managerial position in the corporate world.
4. Your postdoc skills could be very useful for some specific R&D roles, especially if they fit it precisely. But how many such roles exist?
Basically - unless there is a perfect fit, it’s really hard to convince companies that they need you because of your academic experience.
❗️A postdoc makes sense WHEN:
0. You want to stay in academia.
1. Your personal situation requires it (immigration, family, etc).
2. You want to make or join a startup based on your research experience.
3. Your postdoc is in partnership with industry. Here, the partnership should be setting you on the industry track, not purely academic.
4. You are from fundamental research, can’t find an industry role and want to get hands-on experience in applied fields as a postdoc.
📍 Important:
I discuss the academia / industry divide with the top industry recruiter:
“Academia vs Industry: A Recruiter Gets Brutally Honest”
youtu.be/xBGfu-rUg34
Watch it even if you want to stay in academia.
You will understand how industry thinks about academics at a completely different level.
—
10
12
77
13,916
TOTAL nonsense.
This is NOT how university professors and academia generally work.
1. We don't develop solutions to problems. We do research. Research adds new knowledge, and we do our best to make it publicly (!) available. Research is paid from public money, we've been under ke research publicly available, and we do it now through preprints and Open Access.
2. Some labs work with industry on actual well-formulated problems, but those are often paid by the industry and are co-sponsored by public agencies (for example, DOE in the US).
3. Professors normally get salaries for teaching. Teaching can be viewed as a 'paid service to the society'. Research funding has little to do with it.
4. Some professors start companies BUT WITH INVESTORS' money. Governments do contribute, sometimes they may help with seed money, but generally not more. By the way, a government's job is (in particular) to invest public taxes into its own economy. And they do it by seeding startups and businesses in areas where otherwise it's hard to nucleate them. Investment is always a bet. Its about pushing the risk / reward button. Which means there is a reward in the end - a viable business that grows, creates employment and pays taxes.
5. Governments are actually doing a lot to ENCOURAGE professors, PhD students and scientists to make companies, especially based on their research. This matters a lot to the future of any country, it enables the competitive edge in real technologies (not lab prototypes but actual, viable products).
📍 Also, keep in mind that academics are heavily UNDER-PAID in many countries.
Many of them work in academia because they are simply passionate about science, teaching and research.
Expecting them to return the "outcome to society at no cost" makes no sense.
The best way to make 'use' of professors is:
- give them more funding and freedom
- enable more seed funding for startups
- let them breath by cutting the unnecessary bureaucracy
This is the best way to see the 'return on investments'.
Public funding is an investment.
And the major return on investment is - new knowledge and new educated PhDs.
__
This is NOT how university professors and academia generally work.
1. We don't develop solutions to problems. We do research. Research adds new knowledge, and we do our best to make it publicly (!) available. Research is paid from public money, we've been under ke research publicly available, and we do it now through preprints and Open Access.
2. Some labs work with industry on actual well-formulated problems, but those are often paid by the industry and are co-sponsored by public agencies (for example, DOE in the US).
3. Professors normally get salaries for teaching. Teaching can be viewed as a 'paid service to the society'. Research funding has little to do with it.
4. Some professors start companies BUT WITH INVESTORS' money. Governments do contribute, sometimes they may help with seed money, but generally not more. By the way, a government's job is (in particular) to invest public taxes into its own economy. And they do it by seeding startups and businesses in areas where otherwise it's hard to nucleate them. Investment is always a bet. Its about pushing the risk / reward button. Which means there is a reward in the end - a viable business that grows, creates employment and pays taxes.
5. Governments are actually doing a lot to ENCOURAGE professors, PhD students and scientists to make companies, especially based on their research. This matters a lot to the future of any country, it enables the competitive edge in real technologies (not lab prototypes but actual, viable products).
📍 Also, keep in mind that academics are heavily UNDER-PAID in many countries.
Many of them work in academia because they are simply passionate about science, teaching and research.
Expecting them to return the "outcome to society at no cost" makes no sense.
The best way to make 'use' of professors is:
- give them more funding and freedom
- enable more seed funding for startups
- let them breath by cutting the unnecessary bureaucracy
This is the best way to see the 'return on investments'.
Public funding is an investment.
And the major return on investment is - new knowledge and new educated PhDs.
__
4
1
30
4,164
My new lecture - Who will become a professor? And why?
Three PhD students with three dramatic stories, each with a different career path hoping to stay in academia.
If you want to become a PI, you may face challenges you never anticipated.
It’s easy to make mistakes and be advice.
It’s easy to get stuck on ‘infinite postdoc’ or hit a wall as a dual-career academic couple.
In this talk, I show how unpredictable your academic career can be.
I also explain how PhD students often miss out on opportunities.
What should students do to significantly improve their chances? How to compete for academic positions?
Lecture: “The Real Cost of Following Your Academic Dream”
youtu.be/IM6Qp3yXNro
(I recently gave this talk at the PhD / postdoc symposium in Swiss Alps)
Three PhD students with three dramatic stories, each with a different career path hoping to stay in academia.
If you want to become a PI, you may face challenges you never anticipated.
It’s easy to make mistakes and be advice.
It’s easy to get stuck on ‘infinite postdoc’ or hit a wall as a dual-career academic couple.
In this talk, I show how unpredictable your academic career can be.
I also explain how PhD students often miss out on opportunities.
What should students do to significantly improve their chances? How to compete for academic positions?
Lecture: “The Real Cost of Following Your Academic Dream”
youtu.be/IM6Qp3yXNro
(I recently gave this talk at the PhD / postdoc symposium in Swiss Alps)
1
8
69
9,776
Traditional peer review may go extinct. Slowly but steadily.
The trend is worrisome but expected because:
- scientists are overloaded, their time is precious.
- scientists aren’t paid for peer review, so many think “Why should I bother about who writes it?”
- scientists who receive increasingly negative reviews and rejections from at top journals - they no longer care about rigor so much anymore. When the system doesn’t reward you for rigor, why bother?
Human-written peer reviews are turning into “handmade products”.
Soon, these reviews will need much more justification than simply “editor needs your review”.
Again, it’s a very bad trend.
The trend is worrisome but expected because:
- scientists are overloaded, their time is precious.
- scientists aren’t paid for peer review, so many think “Why should I bother about who writes it?”
- scientists who receive increasingly negative reviews and rejections from at top journals - they no longer care about rigor so much anymore. When the system doesn’t reward you for rigor, why bother?
Human-written peer reviews are turning into “handmade products”.
Soon, these reviews will need much more justification than simply “editor needs your review”.
Again, it’s a very bad trend.
senior phd student in our group has spent over two years doing fundamental research of a complex metal-support interaction of noble metals at high temperatures. Submitted to physical review letters
both reviews came back as claudeslop
9
17
133
32,836
Congratulate me - I got into 2% ranking by Stanford!
Yes!
After almost 20 years in research.
I did it.
How lovely.
How amazing.
And how ridiculous.
After so many discussions about the dangers of such rankings, we still boast about it. On a mass scale.
As scientists, we should ’t our research speak for itself?
And why do we want to show our superiority?
Myself, I aim to MINIMIZE the number of papers.
Each study should take many years to complete.
Because we dig deep. We investigate. We don’t rush to publish. We wanted every study to stand the test of time.
Many people asked me to collaborate. Some prestigious journals sent me invitations to publish. But I rarely said yes.
Because I don’t want to spread my efforts too thinly across many papers & projects. It reduces quality and makes the whole point of doing science meaningless for me.
I know my posts bruise the egos of some professors. I am sorry if that makes it harder to polish your trophies.
“An academic career, in which a person is forced to produce scientific writings in great amounts, creates a danger of intellectual superficiality” - Albert Einstein
The truth is - science is not about trophies.
What matters is what we learn about the universe.
Great science always speaks for itself.
___
Yes!
After almost 20 years in research.
I did it.
How lovely.
How amazing.
And how ridiculous.
After so many discussions about the dangers of such rankings, we still boast about it. On a mass scale.
As scientists, we should ’t our research speak for itself?
And why do we want to show our superiority?
Myself, I aim to MINIMIZE the number of papers.
Each study should take many years to complete.
Because we dig deep. We investigate. We don’t rush to publish. We wanted every study to stand the test of time.
Many people asked me to collaborate. Some prestigious journals sent me invitations to publish. But I rarely said yes.
Because I don’t want to spread my efforts too thinly across many papers & projects. It reduces quality and makes the whole point of doing science meaningless for me.
I know my posts bruise the egos of some professors. I am sorry if that makes it harder to polish your trophies.
“An academic career, in which a person is forced to produce scientific writings in great amounts, creates a danger of intellectual superficiality” - Albert Einstein
The truth is - science is not about trophies.
What matters is what we learn about the universe.
Great science always speaks for itself.
___
5
10
47
4,877
Very bad news for the international PhD students in the US:
A new Proposed Rule requires $70,000 in fees for an OPT application.
Let’s say you’re a PhD graduate. If you want to stay in the US after graduation, the New Rule will require you to pay $70,000 if you want to work as y.
Technically, OPT extends your ‘educational’ status.
Normally, as a PhD student, you’re on a J-1 or F-1 visa.
After defense, you often apply for an Optional Practical Training (OPT) to continue your visa status. It allows you to be hired in a company or university (e.g. as a postdoc) for several years before you can get a green card or another status (like H1B).
📍 If the proposed rule is enacted:
- The vast majority of international PhD students will leave the country after graduation.
- Far fewer international students will be signing up for PhD programs in the US from abroad.
Personally, I don’t understand it.
Why paying so much for top-tier education & training, and then WASTING it all by not letting people stay and build technologies for the country?
These barriers will deter so many bright talents... Very sad.
A new Proposed Rule requires $70,000 in fees for an OPT application.
Let’s say you’re a PhD graduate. If you want to stay in the US after graduation, the New Rule will require you to pay $70,000 if you want to work as y.
Technically, OPT extends your ‘educational’ status.
Normally, as a PhD student, you’re on a J-1 or F-1 visa.
After defense, you often apply for an Optional Practical Training (OPT) to continue your visa status. It allows you to be hired in a company or university (e.g. as a postdoc) for several years before you can get a green card or another status (like H1B).
📍 If the proposed rule is enacted:
- The vast majority of international PhD students will leave the country after graduation.
- Far fewer international students will be signing up for PhD programs in the US from abroad.
Personally, I don’t understand it.
Why paying so much for top-tier education & training, and then WASTING it all by not letting people stay and build technologies for the country?
These barriers will deter so many bright talents... Very sad.
52
91
563
142,597
The new Proposed Rule on the official register:
federalregister.gov/documents/2026…
federalregister.gov/documents/2026…
0
0
5
5,854
How to become a professor at the top university:
I discuss with Prof. Pavan Nukala how Indian Institute of Science hires professors and what mistakes the candidates make.
youtu.be/uiJoaA801nA
IISc is the dream place for many students and faculty.
It’s located at the heart of the India’s Silicon Valley - Bengaluru, also known as the Garden City.
We discuss how interviews are done, why seemingly strong graduates can fail faculty interviews and what makes others stand out.
It’s one of the most insightful conversations you can find.
Enjoy.
I discuss with Prof. Pavan Nukala how Indian Institute of Science hires professors and what mistakes the candidates make.
youtu.be/uiJoaA801nA
IISc is the dream place for many students and faculty.
It’s located at the heart of the India’s Silicon Valley - Bengaluru, also known as the Garden City.
We discuss how interviews are done, why seemingly strong graduates can fail faculty interviews and what makes others stand out.
It’s one of the most insightful conversations you can find.
Enjoy.
0
0
10
1,289
When error bars go crazy...
Honestly, the graph shows there may be trends, or there may not be any.
When error bars overlap, it normally means "We don't know where the reality is until we collect more data with better precision".
Honestly, the graph shows there may be trends, or there may not be any.
When error bars overlap, it normally means "We don't know where the reality is until we collect more data with better precision".
The no-exercise creatine group wasn’t asked to do anything, except add the powder.
They gained 0.99 kg of lean tissue by week 6 and 1.1 kg by week 12. The no-exercise placebo group went -0.09 kg and -0.16 kg.
It beat both placebo groups, including the one lifting.
0
0
4
717
THE WORLD UNIVERSITY RANKING 2027 (my comments):
1. Asia is (finally?) ahead of continental Europe for the first time.
2. Tsinghua University overtakes ETH Zurich and becomes number 11.
3. Perking University is between ETH Zurich and UPenn.
4. University of Chicago is BELOW of Singapore.
5. Nanyang Tech = New York University (I thought Nanyang would get higher).
6a. Northwestern University is below Nanyang, U. Tokyo, TU Munich.
6b. Northwestern = University of Edinburgh.
7. EPFL is below Zhejiang University (number 36).
8. UIUC, Georgia Tech, UT Austin are all below U. Heidelberg, KU Leuven and the Chinese University of Hong Kong.
9. UCSB is number 71 (come on, UCSB, what happened?).
10. The top French university is PSL (number 57).
11. In Italy, the top place is the University of Bologna (number 111).
12. The top German university - TU Munich - is number 25.
13. In Spain, University of Barcelona is the top (number 143).
Finally, Drexel University, where I got my PHD, is Number 376 😬
📍 Now, speaking openly, I think that University Rankings do more damage than good.
They eradicate the original rigor and scope of science and education, providing wrong incentives to the academic community.
1. Ranking cannot measure creativity, depth of research, and educational excellence at a university.
2. The “race” between departments/universities HUGELY contribute to the “rat race” between faculties, postdocs and students.
3. Ranking results in the race for funding, number of papers, citations, invited talks and awards. Without ranking, fewer universities will be concerned about the number of papers professors publish.
4. Ranking does NOT reflect the quality of mentorship, which is vital for any student. It also doesn’t give any insight into how stimulating and “nurturing” the environment is at a school.
Period.
__
1. Asia is (finally?) ahead of continental Europe for the first time.
2. Tsinghua University overtakes ETH Zurich and becomes number 11.
3. Perking University is between ETH Zurich and UPenn.
4. University of Chicago is BELOW of Singapore.
5. Nanyang Tech = New York University (I thought Nanyang would get higher).
6a. Northwestern University is below Nanyang, U. Tokyo, TU Munich.
6b. Northwestern = University of Edinburgh.
7. EPFL is below Zhejiang University (number 36).
8. UIUC, Georgia Tech, UT Austin are all below U. Heidelberg, KU Leuven and the Chinese University of Hong Kong.
9. UCSB is number 71 (come on, UCSB, what happened?).
10. The top French university is PSL (number 57).
11. In Italy, the top place is the University of Bologna (number 111).
12. The top German university - TU Munich - is number 25.
13. In Spain, University of Barcelona is the top (number 143).
Finally, Drexel University, where I got my PHD, is Number 376 😬
📍 Now, speaking openly, I think that University Rankings do more damage than good.
They eradicate the original rigor and scope of science and education, providing wrong incentives to the academic community.
1. Ranking cannot measure creativity, depth of research, and educational excellence at a university.
2. The “race” between departments/universities HUGELY contribute to the “rat race” between faculties, postdocs and students.
3. Ranking results in the race for funding, number of papers, citations, invited talks and awards. Without ranking, fewer universities will be concerned about the number of papers professors publish.
4. Ranking does NOT reflect the quality of mentorship, which is vital for any student. It also doesn’t give any insight into how stimulating and “nurturing” the environment is at a school.
Period.
__
3
2
21
5,461
Andrew Akbashev retweeted
In 1964, a young University of Michigan anthropologist went to live with a tribe untouched by modernity.
What he found destroyed the noble savage myth.
Then his own discipline spent the next four decades trying to destroy him for publishing it. 🧵
What he found destroyed the noble savage myth.
Then his own discipline spent the next four decades trying to destroy him for publishing it. 🧵
236
2,344
13,202
4,172,169
the future of academia…
Are you sure you want to become a PI?
Are you sure you want to become a PI?
Academics have expressed dismay after AI was used to reject half of the grant proposals in a UK Research and Innovation-funded call
timeshighereducation.com/news/ai-only-r…
0
0
15
6,722
Journals can’t find peer reviewers. Preprints aren’t taken seriously. Garbage papers slip through peer review. Meantime, AI is slowly taking over.
This situation is getting worse & worse:
1. Reviewers are overloaded. Fatigue is epidemic. Few scientists have time for it. As a resund times become unpredictable and painfully slow.
2. Grant proposals demand massive peer review too. They push the system even further.
3. Review quality is decreasing. Rigor is inconsistent. Technical aspects are poorly assessed.
4. Bias in peer review is real. W all know how manuscripts are rejected due to competition & jealousy. It causes a growing dissatisfaction among scientists.
❗️ PAID PEER REVIEW is a possible solution.
The best example I know is this:
Prof. Dan Gorelick pays $280 per review.
He’s the editor-in-chief of Biology Open. It’s a not-for-profit community-oriented journal. Made by real scientists. Well-known in the field.
They showed that time to editorial decisions drops HUGELY:
- Unpaid reviews: 38 days.
- Paid reviews: 5-6 days.
__
I talked to Dan about why he dislikes unpaid peer review, publication fees (esp. at Nature), how AI can review papers, and so on. This is just WILD:
youtu.be/33nR98C0pEI
At last, there’s light at the end of the tunnel.
__
This situation is getting worse & worse:
1. Reviewers are overloaded. Fatigue is epidemic. Few scientists have time for it. As a resund times become unpredictable and painfully slow.
2. Grant proposals demand massive peer review too. They push the system even further.
3. Review quality is decreasing. Rigor is inconsistent. Technical aspects are poorly assessed.
4. Bias in peer review is real. W all know how manuscripts are rejected due to competition & jealousy. It causes a growing dissatisfaction among scientists.
❗️ PAID PEER REVIEW is a possible solution.
The best example I know is this:
Prof. Dan Gorelick pays $280 per review.
He’s the editor-in-chief of Biology Open. It’s a not-for-profit community-oriented journal. Made by real scientists. Well-known in the field.
They showed that time to editorial decisions drops HUGELY:
- Unpaid reviews: 38 days.
- Paid reviews: 5-6 days.
__
I talked to Dan about why he dislikes unpaid peer review, publication fees (esp. at Nature), how AI can review papers, and so on. This is just WILD:
youtu.be/33nR98C0pEI
At last, there’s light at the end of the tunnel.
__
10
19
88
6,257
Postdoc doesn't make much sense for industry.
But why?
1. You compete against applicants who already have years of industry experience.
2. You become overqualified for entry positions in 95% of the cases. Even PhD is considered an ‘over-qualification’ for many entry positions.
er positions because they are normally NOT available to those without industry experience. Coming from academia, it’s really hard to secure a managerial position in the corporate world.
4. Your postdoc skills could be very useful for some specific R&D roles, especially if they fit it precisely. But how many such roles exist?
Basically - unless there is a perfect fit, it’s really hard to convince companies that they need you because of your academic experience.
❗️BUT WHY does industry think so differently?
WHY can’t they see value in academics?
HOW can academics be ‘overqualified’?
And WHY are so many people with PhDs are unemployed today?
We discuss it here:
“Academia vs Industry: A Recruiter Gets Brutally Honest”
lnkd.in/ekPtb7Kc
Watch it even if you want to stay in academia. It will give you a much better understanding of the academia-industry gap.
___
But why?
1. You compete against applicants who already have years of industry experience.
2. You become overqualified for entry positions in 95% of the cases. Even PhD is considered an ‘over-qualification’ for many entry positions.
er positions because they are normally NOT available to those without industry experience. Coming from academia, it’s really hard to secure a managerial position in the corporate world.
4. Your postdoc skills could be very useful for some specific R&D roles, especially if they fit it precisely. But how many such roles exist?
Basically - unless there is a perfect fit, it’s really hard to convince companies that they need you because of your academic experience.
❗️BUT WHY does industry think so differently?
WHY can’t they see value in academics?
HOW can academics be ‘overqualified’?
And WHY are so many people with PhDs are unemployed today?
We discuss it here:
“Academia vs Industry: A Recruiter Gets Brutally Honest”
lnkd.in/ekPtb7Kc
Watch it even if you want to stay in academia. It will give you a much better understanding of the academia-industry gap.
___
2
1
12
1,662
HUGE: Mathematicians used AI to got very close to solving Navier-Stokes.
It’s a big pivotal moment for science.
1. The authors - Alpöge and Buckmaster - showed how to achieve a blowup with smooth forcing for 2D Boussinesq equation.
Then they also worked it out for 3D uations. These are Navier-Stokes but without viscosity.
Now, Tarrence Tao says that this approach may likely be extended to actual Navier-Stokes.
2. When I was a student, we had a course on fluid mechanics, the instructor was a mathematician. Back then, I remembered well how he said that Navier-Stokes equation is the central problem in the entire field. But no one knew how to solve it. This was way before we had Wiki, so I just believed him. Today, we know it’s a Millennium Problem.
3. Navier-Stokes has a $1,000,000 bounty on it from Clay Institute.
This is why it’s big news. The new approach may finally help solve the problem.
❗️BUT there’s a big drama behind it:
The authors used AI as assistant to come up with the solution.
According to Buckmaster (the author):
- OpenAI had learned about their progress before it was published and pushed their AI to quickly come up with a similar solution.
- However, OpenAI’s solution was based on the same smooth-forcing approach that Buckmaster/Alpöge had quietly been developing. Buckmaster said that he does not know if their data was used, so he is “not accusing anyone of anything.”
- OpenAI proposed to publish OpenAI's claimed Navier-Stokes result after Buckmaster posts their Euler work first.
- However, Sébastien Bubeck (a research lead at OpenAI) didn’t want to see Alpöge as the author because Alpöge works at Anthropic.
- When Buckmaster rejected these proposals, he was told “Why would you ruin your career?” and “If you don't want me to be nice, then I don't have to be nice.”
Bubeck from OpenAI called these allegations “false and inflammatory”. As of now, there are no further comments. As a result, the authors decided to post their unpolished documents before OpenAI.
__
This is a tectonic event for mathematics.
AI is reshaping mathematics forever.
__
It’s a big pivotal moment for science.
1. The authors - Alpöge and Buckmaster - showed how to achieve a blowup with smooth forcing for 2D Boussinesq equation.
Then they also worked it out for 3D uations. These are Navier-Stokes but without viscosity.
Now, Tarrence Tao says that this approach may likely be extended to actual Navier-Stokes.
2. When I was a student, we had a course on fluid mechanics, the instructor was a mathematician. Back then, I remembered well how he said that Navier-Stokes equation is the central problem in the entire field. But no one knew how to solve it. This was way before we had Wiki, so I just believed him. Today, we know it’s a Millennium Problem.
3. Navier-Stokes has a $1,000,000 bounty on it from Clay Institute.
This is why it’s big news. The new approach may finally help solve the problem.
❗️BUT there’s a big drama behind it:
The authors used AI as assistant to come up with the solution.
According to Buckmaster (the author):
- OpenAI had learned about their progress before it was published and pushed their AI to quickly come up with a similar solution.
- However, OpenAI’s solution was based on the same smooth-forcing approach that Buckmaster/Alpöge had quietly been developing. Buckmaster said that he does not know if their data was used, so he is “not accusing anyone of anything.”
- OpenAI proposed to publish OpenAI's claimed Navier-Stokes result after Buckmaster posts their Euler work first.
- However, Sébastien Bubeck (a research lead at OpenAI) didn’t want to see Alpöge as the author because Alpöge works at Anthropic.
- When Buckmaster rejected these proposals, he was told “Why would you ruin your career?” and “If you don't want me to be nice, then I don't have to be nice.”
Bubeck from OpenAI called these allegations “false and inflammatory”. As of now, there are no further comments. As a result, the authors decided to post their unpolished documents before OpenAI.
__
This is a tectonic event for mathematics.
AI is reshaping mathematics forever.
__
11
22
126
23,149
The Authors’s solution:
mathstodon.xyz/@tristanbuckma…
Terence Tao on the solution:
mathstodon.xyz/@tao/117233527…
mathstodon.xyz/@tristanbuckma…
Terence Tao on the solution:
mathstodon.xyz/@tao/117233527…
0
1
2
1,581
Universities are too slow to respond to AI.
Just too slow.
Soon, many could face an existential threat if nothing changes.
I talked to Brian Rosenberg, the former college president and now Harvard professor.
He explained how universities & colleges are in danger because they are built around century-old traditions and can’t change fast enough for the AI.
Watch our conversation to understand where we might be heading:
youtu.be/5deEecHNT2g
__
Brian Rosenberg is very well known for his book “Whatever It Is, I’m Against It: Resistance to Change in Higher Education”.
He is also the Director and Senior Advisor at African Leadership University (ALU), a unique institution that has no departments or majors for students and follows a new approach to education.
__
Just too slow.
Soon, many could face an existential threat if nothing changes.
I talked to Brian Rosenberg, the former college president and now Harvard professor.
He explained how universities & colleges are in danger because they are built around century-old traditions and can’t change fast enough for the AI.
Watch our conversation to understand where we might be heading:
youtu.be/5deEecHNT2g
__
Brian Rosenberg is very well known for his book “Whatever It Is, I’m Against It: Resistance to Change in Higher Education”.
He is also the Director and Senior Advisor at African Leadership University (ALU), a unique institution that has no departments or majors for students and follows a new approach to education.
__
3
5
18
3,616
Finally - we can more or leas reliably check if the conclusions in a given research paper are supported truly by data. And this can be scaled up.
AI is profoundly challenging academia.
AI is profoundly challenging academia.
I sicced Astra on a bunch of replication packages, and it found a huge number of coding errors.
Most of these were inconsequential, but some of them overturn central results for papers in high-ranking journals.
Astra also discovered that many models weren't even run properly.
0
0
5
1,650
