Alexey summarizes the advice he hears me give people

by  Tyler Cowen in
  1. You can always do better.
  2. Don’t do a big project if the conversations you have w/ your future colleagues are not the most exciting ones you have.
  3. Prepare to live in times of change.
  4. What great people work on is overdetermined because it’s clear what the greatest thing to do is at any point in history.
  5. Always keep improving your mentors and always keep asking yourself who are the young people you want to be talking to.
  6. Recursive self-improvement requires a closed system.
  7. Find a partner.

Comments

DeQuan

91 4
Hide Replies

>it’s clear what the greatest thing to do is at any point in history.

This is just so very blindingly false.

Isaac Newton - Alchemist

57 1
Hide Replies

One day I'll turn lead into gold. You'll see. You'll all see!

Dennis Duffy

23 1

I'm starting my own crypto currency. Consider investing today!

Etalon d'Silomar

4 1

Seaborg created gold from Bismuth in 1980, and it was one of the least important parts of his career.

Rich Berger

28 1
Hide Replies

Maybe this guy was just pulling TC’s leg.

EdR

1 1

Or stroking his ego.

Tom T.

27 1
Hide Replies

"Plastics."

Martin

7 1
Hide Replies

Any reference to 'The Graduate' gets auto thumbs up.

Tom B

4 1

Isn't that one of the purposes of bloggers, posters, commenters, etc: "You're trying to seduce me, aren't you?"

JFA

16 2
Hide Replies

I think that’s a typo and should’ve been “unclear”

dan1111

7 0
Hide Replies

Maybe, but how is it "overdetermined", then? The original statement was obviously wrong, but coherent (multiple forces/influences are pushing great people to work on that one obvious Important Thing).

If you change it to "unclear" what point is it even supposed to be making?

sxb

3 0

Right , unclear doesn’t improve the sentence.

JFA

1 1

Yeah.. fair enough... I think this just means that the list is complete bollocks and perhaps people shouldn't take advice from Tyler. It's about as clear as his reasons why GBD is not what he supported or his responses to people about AI risk.

jl

8 1

I don't know, I think the jury might still be out on whether Tyler and Alex were right to spend so much time on NFTs.

Reason

8 2
Hide Replies

This has to be a typo. In 1970 or 1980 or even in 1990, when people were selecting majors there is no way that they could have predicted that working on computation would be the most impactful area.

Faze

8 2

Oh, we knew, we knew. I remember one night, forty-five years ago, walking across campus and seeing the lights burning bright in the new computer labs. “Maybe I should switch my major,” I said, half jokingly, to my companion. “Those guys up there are going to be rich someday.” The next day I browsed through a book about computers in the bookstore, and then set it gingerly back onto the shelf. “That is so dry and dull,” I thought, “you’d have to be some kind of idiot savant, one of those guys who collects train schedules, to be interested. What a shame. Riches will be wasted on that type.”

Thelonious_Nick

1 1

Is it clear now?

dearieme

2 1

"What great people work on is overdetermined because it’s clear what the greatest thing to do is at any point in history"

Not only is that bollocks but it's plain silly. There are so few "great people" that you can't possibly have a big enough sample to base any conclusions on.

luzh

0 0

Perhaps also implies that the greatest thing to work on 40 years ago was welfare economics?

Moral Panic

0 0

I would describe him more as one who might say, "There are always great things for great talent to work on. Stagnation is a myth or temporary."

sxb

3 3

I think it would have been better to say. It’s clear what the unresolved problems and important questions are.

For example , in computer science , AI is probably the field to work on right now. It wasn’t say 15 years ago ( AI winter). In Physics it might be dark matter , dark energy and quantum gravity.

What happens is that sudden progress occurs in one area ( CRISPR for example ) and then a large portion of researchers shift emphasis, a bit of a follow the herd effect.

Often the unresolved problems are known but can be too hard ( Riemann hypothesis for example ) and great minds choose to tackle smaller manageable problems.

So overall it’s not all that clear what to work on. You have to gauge what is currently in fashion ( but with too many people already involved and possibly ahead of you ) vs what progress can be realistically made on tough important problems where you might be spinning your wheels because it’s too difficult

In the battle of the bots

0 0

It is very difficult to declare a winner. Pole position at number 1 always provides a vote bonus, but Tyler has the home field advantage, Maybe someday you will get a hundred plus upvotes like Sailer, but it appears today is not that day.

james

20 1
Hide Replies

Can you expand on "recursive self-improvement requires a closed system"?

Do you mean you need feedback loops?

Tyler Cowen

85 3
Hide Replies

I didn't quite grasp that one either, but often your audiences understand you better than you understand yourself.

Atom

3 0

…somewhat like

Stay the course

EdR

4 4

When I think of recursion I think of recursion - input the output of the previous input. Life is like that anyway, isn't it?

All this sounds careerist, but it doesn't have to be.

I'll buy it, but I would add the corny (eye rolls) "begin with the end in mind". For me that's the love I have for my adult children. If I am awake when the end comes, I think I will be most grateful for that love. I hope so anyway.

Note the child(ren) need not be one's own. It's more challenging but doable if they aren't. Giving love is magical.

Input the output of that! ;)

Martin Buitriago

16 1
Hide Replies

I interpret it as a contrived version of "do things that compound over time", a piece of advice that Tyler often gives. So my own personal translation is "Do things that compound and create a system that is stable enough over time for the compounding to work towards a direction you like".

luzh

9 0

Yes that's what I thought, to put it more fully: compounding money works because the interest is added back to the capital which then increases the interest. For self-improvement to work, the improvements that you make to yourself also need to increase the pace at which you make further improvements. That's why attention to "production function" is so important, improving the production function increases the rate of return on everything else. If you're improvement is not closed-loop, it's like a one-off benefit that doesn't add to your compounding self-capital.

dan1111

10 2

Feedback loops seem like a sensible interpretation. But I really think they mean "iterative", not "recursive".

Neurotic

8 1
Hide Replies

Just the opposite is the reality. Like most of the other points, it is quite wrong. In this case, #6, my response is a) there ARE no (finite) closed systems, b) garbage in - garbage out, and c) repeating the same experiment expecting a different outcome is the definition of insanity.
Other refutations:
#1 - Perfection is the counsel of fools
#2 - Sturgeon's Law applies to careers, too.
#3 - In its link, TC argues we (Americans) haven't seen "truly radical technological change" (since the A-bomb). Rubbish. a) quantity has a quality all its own and b) consider the electronic spreadsheet, to name but one radical technological change.
#4 - amyloid plaques, inertial fusion, UFOs, batteries, carbon capture, ...
#5. - a profoundly parochial (academic) comment
#7 - not for everyone. I wonder if more problems are created or solved by following this advice? Maybe it should have been "Find a partner or a religion"...

nigel

1 1

Great comment, and helpful for neurotics to hear.

Glenn Mercer

4 0

I particularly do not understand the use of the word "closed" here. If recursive means "looping, repeating" (maybe?) I get that, but I don't get "closed."

Reason

2 0

Generally to make rapid progress one needs to be able to run experiments quickly and determine if the experiment was successful.

If the system is not closed, then it is difficult to determine if the experiment passed/failed due to changes you introduced or some other external factor greatly slowly progress.

Scott Mauldin

12 2
Hide Replies

Good advice for people with decent means and networks. Most people cannot apply #2 because financial and chronological need forces them to work on things that aren't the most exciting thing imaginable. Re #4, it may be clear what the greatest things is, but it's not always clear how to enter that field in a way that pays the bills. Re #5, How do most people meet this constantly-improving list of mentors that they can always keep upgrading?

These points need sub-points for how to put them into practice.

Marc_W

9 1

No need to worry about that though, because Richard Hanania says you'll revert to your familial mean. Why not put your feet up and let those with a higher familial trajectory do the hard work?

rayward

9 2

Cowen previously blogged about German scientists of an earlier era traveling the world, with other scientists and to visit other scientists. I mentioned in a comment that Cowen is a world traveler too. But more than that, he interacts with really smart people, many with original ideas, on a daily basis, who seek to interact with him. Is the isolation facilitated by advancements made by tech making us smarter or dumber? Cowen must be an extrovert like none other for all the interaction he has with others, through his work and travels. It makes me tired just thinking about it. Does he ever let his mind come to rest? I suspect not.

James N. Markels

5 0

I would say "find a goal that gives you energy." To achieve anything of significance requires a lot of personal effort, whether it's the 10,000 hours of practice or the scores of books to read or hours spent refining a design. There is a lot of tedium between you and any great accomplishment. What goal gives you the motivation to plow through that tedium?

The second thing is "it doesn't matter if you achieve the goal." This is really important, because many of the best goals simply aren't achievable. But that's OKAY. You should have many goals over the course of your life. Some of those goals will simply be preludes to other goals. I'm not saying that it's cool to just give up on goals when the going gets tough. But a rewarding life is one lived with motivation and energy in whatever direction you choose. Remember that there are a lot of people out there, especially athletes, who have ONE goal for most of their early lives, and then once that has played out (because the body can only stay at peak athleticism for so long) they struggle finding the next goal. Always be ready for that next goal.

Niko Davor

7 3

I suspect top tier celebrities, billionaires, and academics can think like Tyler and choose the most exciting work projects, colleagues, mentors, and mentees, but the other 99% of people, even modestly successful people, are probably closer to the famous Groucho Marx quote: "I wouldn't want to belong to a club that would have me as a member".

Justin Chang

3 0
Hide Replies

Is this Alexey Gouzey? If so, what was the context of this conversation?

mkt42

0 0

It sounds like a list from Guzey. He's a smart guy and a thoughtful guy -- who often comes up with schemes that are flawed or even hare-brained, as the comments here are pointing out.

But it might not be Guzey's list; I would've expected Tyler to supply his last name if it were.

pablo

3 1
Hide Replies

"it’s clear what the greatest thing to do is at any point in history."

It's tech development and always will be?

Robert M.

0 0

Aristotle said the greatest thing to do is "Contemplation" . . . but then he didn't have a ChatGPT account.

luzh

2 0

>it’s clear what the greatest thing to do is at any point in history.

Is it clear right now? Maybe a lot of people would say AI, but I don't think you'd get much general consensus.

Edward Burke

3 1
Hide Replies

#3. (Without clicking a link that I have no sufficient reason to trust):

"Prepare to live in times of accelerating change"?

Why should or how can we think or believe that (many, most) human beings are able, or will become able and willing, to accommodate themselves to each and every push and tug of "change" that our (unelected) technocrats and technocracies are pleased to drown us in?

Are "change-agents" themselves plentifully aware of the extent to which atavism and anachronism continue to afflict broad swaths of humanity even in the opening decades of this century?

Are the "change-agents", apart from supplying the technologies and apparatuses for fomenting change, equipping humanity itself to deal with wrenching transformative change?

"Future Shock" may or may not have been premature back in the day: but how confidently can we predict both that "tech fatigue" does not materialize just as suddenly as some of the proffered changes wrought by applied technology and that the accelerating pace of change will not in fact outstrip most of humanity's global ability to respond to unceasing, unrelenting, and enormously disruptive and dislocating change?

Dan S.

0 0

You don't remember that blog post? That was TC's claim that there has been no radical technological change in his life. That we have actually been living in a "bubble" compared to the rest of history i.e., not much change has happened in our lifetime compared to other generations. But you know, computers, the internet did happen during someone's life.

Rebes

7 6
Hide Replies

1. You can always do better.

Yes, but is it that important? My life changed with this insight: "Nobody ever died thinking 'I wish I had spent more time in the office.'"

Kevin

3 0

You can always do better at a hobby, raising your kids, being a partner, getting out of bed on time, ...

Professor

3 1

The deathbed is neither a good time nor a good position to reflect on one's life, just as a thoughtful yes or no answer to a marriage proposal is not facilitated by a bout of diarrhea.
On the deathbed, there are no costs associated with choosing to spend less time in the office 15 years earlier. Then, the intuition is that the newly acquired free time would be devoted to family and children, but perhaps the spouse and children would resent spending even 10 more minutes a day with that boring spouse and parent.

mkt42

1 0

Right, the author is not adequately accounting for diminishing returns nor opportunity costs. At a certain point, we have reached the time to stop and it is sub-optimal to keep going.

I've read that programmers and computer engineers in Japan are relatively unproductive because they are unwilling to ship flawed or inelegant products, so they'll keep tinkering with the code long after someone else would've said "it's good enough".

If Alexey says that he's accounting for that, and that he is trying to say that we need to do a better job of optimizing, and know when to stop trying to improve things because we've reached the marginal tipping point .... well that's the correct optimization rule, but he has stated it very badly by writing it as "you can always do better".

james

0 0

Thanks anyway.
Next step, get myself an audience so I can better understand myself. Though maybe that comes under #7.

Niko Davor

0 0

Most people have to do jobs that are largely boring or unpleasant work. Life is still pretty great for most. It's important to be positive. But this attitude people can choose their dream project and choose their coworkers and mentors seem unrealistic for most people.

Niemand Anders

0 0

Do you have a partner yet?

Phil

0 0

You couldn’t even give him a link? Rough.

Chimela Caesar

0 1
Hide Replies

2. Don’t do a big project if the conversations you have w/ your future colleagues are not the most exciting ones you have.

Relative, I might respond -- rightly or maybe wrongly.

Take for an example, Feynman. I don't think he was your typical "nice" guy. Not totally agreeable. I guess he might have had an antenna to sniff whether potential colleagues were loyal and had both his short-term and long-term interests at heart -- otherwise he would turn "aggressive": he was psychologically *atypical*. Do we call that neurodiversity these days? And I strongly feel he would not understand psychological tests of commitment.

So if you judged such people by rules for regular mortals, they would be the first to be thrown out, perhaps unfortunately along with the goods they bear.

How might such people be managed? Avoid too many tests -- you might just be confusing them. Reassure them that you have their interests at heart.

For instance, provide financial succor while you are on a mutual project. They might be short on funds at the time, and would not do volunteer venture until the project begins to turn profits. However, these folks can be good at contributing their hearts. And make interesting friends. And are hilarious.

Hat tip: ChatGPT

Professor

1 0
Hide Replies

The solution to not accepting the unacceptable from the indispensable (e.g., a genius like Feynman) is to make the identification and support of talent better, so that talent becomes less scarce and thus more dispensable.

It could be said that talent will always be scarce, like the rich: all we need to do is to change the threshold that separates the talented from the untalented and the rich from the well-off, and who used to be a genius will become just a smart guy and who used to own gold mines will be nothing more than jewelers.

Chimela Caesar

0 0

And how many Feynman equivalents has your world had since his time with your incrementally improved talent selection programs?

You probably do not understand the problem at hand. Talent is not just quantitative; it is equally qualitative.

The quantitative type is easier to scale, easier find, and easier to replace. Your talent selection programs can accelerate this type.

The second type of talent is scarcer in the population pool. "More enrichment!" (as with Uranium), you might be tempted to scream. However, what is missing in your insight is that, perhaps this troublesome talent moves in a troublesome conduit. That is, either as a side effect, some form of biological compensation, or even the very source of the talent, these folks must arrive at your doorstep "damaged". It's up to you what to do with them, if you want more zero-to-one effects.

Good luck to you chasing down "nice" Feynmans.

Hat tip: ChatGPT

Comments for this post are closed