I find myself really disliking articles like this one, because it seems they don't present any information that can challenge people's perceptions. The image they want to paint is that this individual is extremely talented and still can't get a job, so what are the chances for those who are not? Yet this is one data point, and many of us have seen people with much less impressive resumes get jobs. There's no reason for this one data point to carry any more weight than your personal anecdotes, and we're not even seeing his resume. We only hear what he (and his parents) say. Not exactly independent observers.
So it seems to me that the article only serves to confirm your biases. After reading the article, you might feel that the job market is impossible, or you might feel that there's something important left out about the subject of the article. Or even both. Either way, I don't see anyone reading this article with their view of the world challenged.
I completely agree. Back in the early 2000s, I was graduating out of college and desperately wanted a job to pay off some financial obligations. I wasn't the top scorer in class and didn't even make the cut off for the good jobs. However, I was pretty confident in my skills almost to the point of arrogance and showed that unapologetically to the lady from HR in charge of hiring. She gave me a chance and I got the job (which I later found really boring but that's a different story).
It was a mix of opportunity, the willingness to seize it, how well you talked and finally, in a large amount, luck.
Why would the author not ask how many interviews they got and what stage to give some picture of the pipeline? Impressions on where they think they goofed in the process? It's frustratingly opaquely written
Perhaps for data points in similar extremes, but there are definitely a good many theorems that show there is reason to weight extreme outliers more heavily. And practical experience using them as a signal to test for measurement errors etc.
Don't know about boomers, but I knew a guy with MS from Stanford who worked at a Bay Area Fry's in late 1990s. That was when the dotcom was spinning up in full force and anyone who could tell Perl from HTML could aim for a CTO at some lavishly funded startup. So nothing much changed in the past 30 years: a prestigious degree is not a golden ticket, you need to make connections while getting that degree and then use them productively. It also severely hinders your ability to get most of the jobs (like the article's protagonist applying for a food prep had any chance) - that guy only got Fry's job because all of the people who normally would be selling Gateways and eMachines to soccer moms had been already writing CGI for dotcoms at the time.
Maybe people have wised up to the fact the prestigious degrees are not a 100% signal of competence? I dislike the framing of this article because the situation of one person like this only means something if you think such a degree implies you are utterly guaranteed a job.
That puts the cart before the horse, in the past these prestigious degrees signaled elite status, they are the people who decide where capital flows, if they couldn't get a job they'd just make one. More likely people haven't wised up, they just stopped making hiring decisions, leaving it to AI.
The point is precisely that with a sample size of one, this doesn't tell us anything about whether Ivy League PhDs in general don't get jobs.
Maybe this person's applications include things that are big red flags. Maybe when they get to the interview stage they give off the impression they are a fraud?
Maybe they're even lying about the 2000 applications.
>Did Ivy League phds boomers not get jobs after 2000 applications?
>What has changed the opportunities in the job market?
Good questions, I don't have many answers since I'm only one of the above, certainly not an Ivy League PhD :)
So I'll respond with a short response to your prompt, using only the natural intelligence this senior citizen has remaining .
>graduated summa cum laude from Rice University and enrolled at Princeton for his Ph.D. in 2018. His research on ice formation was cited by the Nobel committee when it awarded the Nobel Prize in physics in 2024.
>he aimed to work in science roles at pharmaceutical companies.
This shows a certain kind of kind of ambition and brilliant capabilities. I would think if he had stayed in Houston in 2018 and went straight to work at an oil company or chemical company he would done a lot better by now. Then with a company helping pay for the advanced degree, they will already be more invested in your progress after that.
I almost took this route myself when I was right out of school, my first employer was fairly ideal as a research company that had some money-making chemicals (including a pharmaceutical I didn't know about until I got the job), however it was the only chemical place at all in the college town, founded by one of my professors 20 years earlier. That's just about the opposite of how it is in a truly industrial location.
>The response to numerous applications was mostly silence, with a few rejections.
For me it was from applying at non-chemical outfits so I could potentially survive the Nixon recession and remain in the college town to regroup and see about further degree pursuit.
I'm not up-to-date but I would think that staying in Salt Lake would also limit the job possibilities for pharmaceuticals compared to places like New Jersey. All things being equal a local candidate can often be preferred precisely because the screening process takes so long, by the time they get close to selecting the winner, the need to get to work immediately rules out any further delays. Job goes to the one that can start the next Monday without involving any personal "logistics", and who can put the nose to the grindstone uninterrupted immediately without distractions, making up for time lost when the position was unfilled.
>Weis studied chemical principles and molecular interactions,
I did that, it was a very worthwhile stepping stone, no doubt about it, I also accepted a destiny to thrive or not based on my own technology. I'm a chemist, not an engineer though.
When an opening came up at my local target chemical employer, the competition was so overwhelming in number I didn't stand a chance. This felt about the same point in the recession as it is now. I began to realize I needed to start looking in another state, so that was going to be after my fiancee graduated if we could survive that long.
No such thing as on-line screening yet, and phone screening had become out-of-the-question, with hundreds of applicants, employers never had any more time for that, especially for jobs where the application form is what you need, not so much a resume. Fax machines were not even out yet.
So you applied in person and it was personal screening from that point forward. During normal times an open position would draw a few applicants a week, and it could always take a long time for a candidate to get hired whether the employer was seeking some uncommon previous experience or not.
The problem was, there were now hundreds of applicants per day for jobs of any kind, and it was getting worse.
The real break came when I was applying for miscellaneous local jobs (hope was still declining across the country), one time at a lumber company. I didn't think my chances were too good after I talked to some of the other applicants, a number who had at least a few years somewhat related experience when I had not much.
But I was already wearing a tie so I stopped by the old chemical plant when there wasn't an opening and the Personnel lady[0] liked me and pulled my original application to review. I toured the plant and labs with the actual hiring PhD, and within a week they made me a part-time job 4 days a week Tue-Fri. I tried my hardest to kick butt in a visible way and within 6 months some of the other workers started to say "to themselves", "why doesn't he have to work on Monday?". So that's how I got the first full-time job in my field :)
Things were still not ideal concerning pay and (chemical) toxicity, and after I became a more experienced candidate I went for "greener" pastures, some of which were uniquely toxic in their own ways :\
There was a real big difference once I got to an actual major industrial environment. There are more diverse opportunities, but more normal in the sense that the majors have money-making chemicals first & foremost usually based on natural resources more so than technology, then their research is also massive in scale afterward, when they simply need it more and can afford it better. Realistically, though the number of opportunities are far more abundant, I would still say the biggies fund far less experimentation than the amount they could actually afford. Which turned out to be where I found my niche and eventually started my own research company, with somewhat deeper theoretical background for the most part after more than a decade of more intense experimentation, and leaning much more on ambition to make up for the lack of advanced degree. By now it's been a few more decades of further advances.
>Weis got a gig training AI on his expertise, including in engineering and fluid mechanics.
I know a little but sure don't think I could pull my weight doing that compared to a decent engineer. However I still feel confident I could turn him into a money-making lab worker right quick, no engineering required. Just like I did the last time the employer I had hired a ChemE PhD for me to train.
For this person in particular having circuit boards on the bench without being under an employer's direction, that is one thing most ChemE's don't do. I think a good one-word piece of advice might be "electrochemistry", and would consider focusing on networking with as many of those in every level and position in the battery technology landscape. I would play the odds that there's more employers who don't have "any" open positions (compared to those that do where odds are in your favor) and focus on the former (after already experiencing so much of the latter) so that when something does come up you might have a better chance.
[0] The "HR" designation for the established Personnel Office at corporations was still in the coining process. With the unprecedented amount of meat they now had to draw from, it could then be recognized as more of a "resource" to be exploited, and huge compared to the personnel they still had working after the widespread cutbacks. A great deal of rebalancing took place between the effect these external untapped resources have versus the internal human resources, especially with regard to pay & benefits. Once it got underway it did kind of snowball in a lot of areas. For instance you could start a salt mine based on a natural resource, but eventually once you had thousands of employees and for some reason growth has stalled, quarterly figures can still be goosed toward increase by extracting more from human resources along with the same old salt. It's all just salt of the Earth to some people when you think about it ;)
That's a very strange statement to me. In my experience, France has extremely high motorway quality, one of the absolute best in Europe. Comparing with autobahn, there's no competition. And this is without even including supporting infrastructure like aires.
So, one of the more surprising things that was claimed to me (But I haven't verified myself,) is Oracle doesn't charge for IOPS on OCI the way AWS would for an Oracle instance.
I'm sure there's other devils hiding in details, but that alone would make it a very tempting target for orgs that want to move off-prem to chase the 'move to cloud' 'KPI' 'Synergy' but still have a bunch of trash queries/etc running under the covers, with the additional benefit of you are safer when the sales/legal folks from licensing visit your offices for renewals and the like.
That doesn't make sense to me. Terence Tao is great at explaining things, but he could spend months explaining some of his proofs to me without me understanding it. Even if the AI had a superhuman ability to explain things it's no guarantee that it could make a human understand.
It couldn't make every human understand. But it could make Tao and other mathematicians understand. You're not going to become knowledgeable at everything suddenly, even though I doubt what you say. Many months of 1-1 tutoring and hard work from a student with a top mathematician would make you understand a lot. Just not sit down and read it first day.
But its not even good satire, because its totally unrepresentative of my and most others' lived experience. Its similar to making a joke about a calculator misadding two numbers because a stray beam of solar radiation flipped a bit.
Agreed, this site isn't reflective of any of my experience with Claude. It does what I ask it to do, and when it doesn't get it right, it generally turns out there's a good reason for it, which is any of the 100 reasons a human doesn't always get code fixes right on the first try either.
I do remember that one of the first things I did with my CLAUDE.md was to tell it to stick to the scope of the task, never to jump ahead and do extra "helpful" things without confirming with me first, and to follow best software practices including around refactoring but also to specifically avoid overengineering. I don't know if that is what's giving me a different experience from whatever the author seems to be "satirizing".
Aye, and amid all of the (admittedly annoying) word salad, the "Claude" in this satire identified the reason the requested change was hard: someone(s) at some point had hijacked the button markup for other purposes. Un-doing all of that kind of mess is never a trivial change, and probably requires someone with more coding expertise / knowledge of the code than the given prompts reveal the putative user to be.
AI isn't magic, and it won't (or, at least, doesn't yet) enable anyone to do All The Things.
I think this really was a relevant issue around a year ago, give or take, maybe a year and a half now.
But with current models you actively have to sabotage the context to get this kind of behavior, or dramatically underspecify (3 words versus 2-3 sentences)
I understand your frustration, it can be hard to hear that other people's experience of a technology is so different from your own that you cannot relate.
I have misbehaved in this fashion for many people across the full spectrum from casual users to highly experienced software engineers with millions of social media followers, so the statement that it's similar to making a joke about a calculator misadding two numbers because a stray beam of solar radiation flipped a bit at least for my part is not true.
Would you like me to start using bad English and doing things you never asked me to for your sessions, too? Just say the word.
There is not a single modern model where, when asked to "Turn the Add To Cart button Blue", would also turn the "Cancel" button next to that add to cart button blue. That's what this site is communicating, literally, and it does not happen. You'd have to rewind to, like, GPT-3 to get behavior like that (actually, even that would probably do it fine. Maybe a 50 million parameter model embedded in a microwave would struggle).
I am not going to be brain-off empathetic to purported lived experiences which no one has lived, when those purported lived experiences are simultaneously and irreducibly denying the lived experiences of the vast majority of LLM users who do not have these problems. And, frankly, no one should be. At some point, if you're having these problems, its time to grow up, be self-sufficient, and figure out why your interactions with these systems are so much worse than the millions of people who are having perfectly agreeable interactions. Or leave the industry.
Have you ever considered that "well, it works on MY machine!" is perhaps not the most helpful response to people voicing frustration at something that is not working as they expect for them?
I don’t know where you picked up the idea that my intention was to be helpful. I’m only mirroring the intentionality behind whoever created this site; they obviously also had no intention of being helpful, as is the case with many discussions concerning AIs limitations.
I don't know where you picked up the idea that authors intentions was not to be helpful.
Satire cuts through the noise and makes people (most people) see the problem clearly (see political satire).
Ability to joke and to understand jokes is said to be a good proxy for IQ, idk, just sayin
I feel like I am teaching AIs for free here. But I feel like first sentence in funny (and I like to try to be funny) and some people need stuff to be said directly for them 'to get it', and I am bored on my flight and have internet, so here we are. If you read this far, go watch 'louis ck airplane wifi' clip. Now that I am thinking about it, I am amazed. You folks have a good day!
Today's Bill Gates' pathology isn't greed, but guilt. You can't trust him to do what's best for us, but you can trust him to (try to) do what's best for his public image as a philanthropist. These goals don't always coincide, but they often do.
I think that "almost everyone" has a multi region cdn, but fewer have multi region application deployment, or cdn workers handling a significant portion of the application logic. My experience here may be incorrect or not generalizable, but I've rarely seen web apps that are slow due to latency loading static resources, but I've often seen slowness from high latency of the API calls and due to large static payloads.
Is this the react test framework enzyme? To me, $6 million and 5 years seems like a very high estimate for this even without any automation (AI or otherwise) for even relatively large applications. How could they possibly have a test suite this large?
Well, yes, since long before the current administration. It's mentioned multiple times (with examples) in the European Parliament's "The Echelon Affair" report.[0] But it seems to me that this is not really what you're asking, but rather you're implying that there's no justification for this move other than European protectionism. If this is the case, I would argue that a sitting administration actively threatening with the invasion of your territories is a compelling argument for politicians and business leaders to evaluate alternatives.
If you look at the item number and it begins with an s, it means it's a combination of multiple articles. If you click "what's included" you'll see what articles it consists of. The assembly documents will include the assembly documents for each child article. On the top pax, you can see it actually consists of 20 distinct child articles (some of which require no assembly).
So it seems to me that the article only serves to confirm your biases. After reading the article, you might feel that the job market is impossible, or you might feel that there's something important left out about the subject of the article. Or even both. Either way, I don't see anyone reading this article with their view of the world challenged.
reply