stu_'s comments

Similar position here. CS major who went to work software / FAANG pretty much for my 30 year career.

Something about mechanical engineering feels amazing, unlike software getting real tangible /physical/ results from your work. I feel the CS experience gives a very distinct advantage as well here. Software and CAD isn't scary for a CS brain. CnC (additive and subtractive) seems like logical way to do everything, which is what makes cool parts for projects.

I've acquired a few cheap Harbor Freight welders and oxy/acetylene cutting tools, started with small CnC routers to carve soft metals for parts. 3d print what I can't do in metal.

One really easy area to get into for a software dev is robots, look into RoS, an open source robotics OS based on Linux, order some parts from the RoS wiki. And you can get to your own advanced little r2d2 pretty quickly (real-time 3d mapping of your house, arm with gripper control, voice control, image recognition in real time) - most of the software pieces that ME might struggle with are not so difficult for CS folks, and it enables some really cool results!

Or is your conclusion one that the Sociopaths want you to come to? Hence you go back to support their org rather than compete!

Overcoming that fear of failure and finding some Losers to help your new startup, according to the GP theory, I guess labels you as a Clueless turned Sociopath, but if you swap terms to 'Middle Manager turned CEO' I think it becomes more of an enabling perspective. (One reason I think the negative labels here can hurt folks' ambitions!!)

Agreed, but my interpretation of the following line:

"The Gervais principle predicts the exact opposite: that the most competent ones will be promoted to middle management."

Ie, the competent losers become Clueless. Hence they're capable of jumping ship / or even starting a business if not for their 'delusional loyalty'. (My point being that lots of company brainwashing mentioned by OP attempts to groom Clueless thought patterns to prevent this flight of talent).

True that starting a company is a Sociopath trait in the writeup, but - this is far from an exact science as you correctly stated =)

(nonetheless this doc has caused many great debates over the years, for sure. Reasoning through lens of obsurdities can be fun)

Having worked in faang as well for a while now, I can attest that most people seem to be capable of jumping to their own startups very easily.

Companies need to craft very enticing reasons to stay on as a 'Loser' (mostly via perks and pay) and even work harder to retain 'Clueless' since the latter is even more likely to leave and launch a startup being leadership focused. 'Sociopaths' are so few that they're easily gotten via acquisitions, or simply buy them.

Just a perspective =)

This is an old but good read!

My take since then after numerous debates - there is merit hence the massive success of the Office series.

But in general it is a 'glass half empty' perspective. CEOs are often gifted, hard working, but also a bit lucky at times to be born into fortunate situations. Middle managers, are typically leadership-qualified but simply don't want to devote enough time for a CEO or startup founder role. And the rest- who generally do the 'real' work - are often there due to enjoying the work itself, and have even less interest than middle managers to devote time to climbing a ladder. (All of which are respectable positions)

The labels used in GP tend to give a bit more humor, and also attribute upward growth to negative qualities- so haters feel better about having to deal with folks who dont think like them - so it simultaneously appeals to each group!

Of course the more positive perspective is just as valid.

I don't think folks in academia are anywhere near the cutting edge on AGI. It's not a field that is advanced by things like particle accelerators as you might find in physics, that some unis are famous for.

Look at the work result of folks like engineers at Google - state of the art in AI and driving most of the trends in AGI. Academic opinions are shot down quite quickly there, PhD hiring is mostly frowned on, even in teams working on AGI related tech.

It might be expected that PhD experience provides surprising little insight here unfortunately. Academic smugness is not something that should be offered as part of an opinion- just like many computer science related concepts, progress moves so quickly in these topics that by the time academics reach and start to iterate on concepts, companies have already moved very far beyond.

This isn't intended to be condescending to academics, just real life experience I've had working closely with both crowds and seeing this firsthand. It's a very palpable thing in industry, an Academic gives an opinion on AGI and engineers roll their eyes - since Academic perspectives are currently so useless or out of date for any current, meaningful progress.

Personally I feel the complete opposite sentiment is in fact inevitable.

Technological advances will most likely continue to remove all toil, repetitiveness and skyrocket human productivity. Humans will eventually evolve into a society of calm and complacency, any effort made is likely only for some form of entertainment.

The OP probably wrote their 'doom and gloom' perspective from a comfortable chair on a $1k device in a comfortable place. There are many in the world that couldn't dream of even being able to access technology to post on HN. They might see those in societies with technology access as extremely fortunate.

Consider what it would be like to live in a cave with rocks and sticks as tools, eating bugs to survive. No access to medicine or doctors. And I think it becomes obvious that technological advances, even if they feel useless or small, push society toward inevitable state of optimization toward happiness.