People don't lack inspiration; they've lost interest in it. Many prefer to exist in a static state, merely pretending to be active. Look around: we have the largest number of scientists in history, everywhere you will found PhDs, but all they are doing is implementing the potential built in the 70s-90s.
Modern implementation of AI potential is reminiscent of gladiator fights, where the strength and power of individuals were directed not towards useful endeavors but towards spectacles. It looks like an art of war, but in reality, it's just a waste of energy.
The biggest problem I see with the scientific community right now is with bogus indicators such as h-index https://phys.org/news/2020-07-albert-einstein-mediocre-h-index-bogus.html that result in undue pressure to publish as many papers as humanly possible, where low-quality paper mills flourish and reward these warped incentives along with the warped system. That infamous "giant rat dong" paper is just one of the latest signs of the disease.
That's right. When it's necessary to shift away from established quality indicators, characterized by the level of research contribution, we need new indicators or the strengthening of existing, easily achievable ones. The quality of modern PhDs often reflects this change; more and more, you encounter PhDs whose depth of research is disheartening. It feels as though their work is more akin to an abstract, lacking any substantial depth.
What concerns me most is the future of science. In another 10 years, the old guard, the bearers of the fundamental knowledge base, will retire. They will be replaced by a new generation with high h-index scores. What will happen to science then?
People don't lack inspiration; they've lost interest in it. Many prefer to exist in a static state, merely pretending to be active. Look around: we have the largest number of scientists in history, everywhere you will found PhDs, but all they are doing is implementing the potential built in the 70s-90s.
Modern implementation of AI potential is reminiscent of gladiator fights, where the strength and power of individuals were directed not towards useful endeavors but towards spectacles. It looks like an art of war, but in reality, it's just a waste of energy.
The biggest problem I see with the scientific community right now is with bogus indicators such as h-index https://phys.org/news/2020-07-albert-einstein-mediocre-h-index-bogus.html that result in undue pressure to publish as many papers as humanly possible, where low-quality paper mills flourish and reward these warped incentives along with the warped system. That infamous "giant rat dong" paper is just one of the latest signs of the disease.
That's right. When it's necessary to shift away from established quality indicators, characterized by the level of research contribution, we need new indicators or the strengthening of existing, easily achievable ones. The quality of modern PhDs often reflects this change; more and more, you encounter PhDs whose depth of research is disheartening. It feels as though their work is more akin to an abstract, lacking any substantial depth.
What concerns me most is the future of science. In another 10 years, the old guard, the bearers of the fundamental knowledge base, will retire. They will be replaced by a new generation with high h-index scores. What will happen to science then?
"What will happen to science then?"
...it will end up looking like that giant AI-generated rat dong