Hacker News Reader

Comment by tansey | Hacker News Reader

Academic here. It's actually great for us. You're usually the first to see the implications for your niche area and have a chance to get a hot paper out rather than a moderately impactful one.

View on HN

I think it depends on who has the hot paper and who has the outdated results. I was in academia for quite some time and when sometime cool comes out that renders other results less important, there are always winners and losers beccause the only thing that matters in academia is impact and the latest and greatest - not the blind alleys along the way.

There isn't really an "us" in academia like there is in a private company, who all have a common goal: in academia the goal is to get there before another does and be on top.

im pretty sure in private companies people are vying for promotions and trying to out maneuver their colleagues in the eyes of management. just look at ai use, johnny knows how to prompt better than sammy, so johnny looks like a 2x more productive programmer. its every man, woman and child for themselves.

The perspective changes if you're in your last year of PhD as GP said. I'm sure the system is built in a way that you'll still graduate because your supervisor knows this is about learning how to conduct research and not about being right. But it's likely still soul crushing to come out with no published paper (unless you still publish knowing you're wrong, which in some cases might be valuable).

If your soul can bounce back, finding ways your previous research might help, or combine with the breakthrough (or not !) can help. I've used many previous formal/analytic SOTA algorithms and methods for dataset tagging automation, or as feedback for RL, or to speed-up post-training.

Three/four years of (honest) work is usually worth to publish. The result might not be high impact (and thus end up in a lower tier journal, sadly) but knowing what didn't work is also a valid output.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com