"the demand for philosophers with A.I. training is, if anything, outstripping the supply right now. It’s an area I encourage students to go into"...
There's about 20 philosophers employed by AI labs worldwide, vs 1000s of software engineers, product managers, designers, etc. There's probably more economists working in these labs than philosophers...
datakan [3 hidden]5 mins ago
If the AI is digesting all the philosophy material ever published then why do they need philosophers?
genxy [3 hidden]5 mins ago
That is not what AI is. AI is a powerful tool, a semiautonomous set of wood working tools that still need a master craftsperson to use. You need the tool+genius to drive it. Everyone wants to shoot down AI but they think AI will do everything. Being proud of a creation where someone did style transfer between spongebob and Rembrandt and they think they made art. About as responsible for actual art as just downloading images from google.
The_Blade [3 hidden]5 mins ago
knowing all the philosophy every published is not being a philosopher
there was literature about 15 years or so ago stating Philosophy as being uncommonly lucrative course of study, in part citing Reid Hoffman
it is a way of thinking
antonvs [3 hidden]5 mins ago
> knowing all the philosophy every published is not being a philosopher
Debatable. We may need to ask a philosopher.
yepyoukno [3 hidden]5 mins ago
Philosophy is a living process of integrating ideas. Classical materials are the wet stone upon which the mind is sharpened. Unlike history, where literal established accounts are ideal, in philosophy one is expected to view today (or the future) through the lens of contextual discourse.
While there is “no right answer” understanding what the issues are and how the discussion plays out is relevant.
deadbabe [3 hidden]5 mins ago
Starbucks employs orders of magnitude more philosophers than any AI labs.
jayd16 [3 hidden]5 mins ago
If pay, hours, benefits, and type of work mean nothing to you, then maybe this is an apt point.
appreciatorBus [3 hidden]5 mins ago
If service to others and to society mean anything to you, working in Starbucks or any fast food job will teach you more about humanity and human society than most college grads learn from a humanities degree.
OtherShrezzing [3 hidden]5 mins ago
It’s difficult to articulate the tedium and monotony of a Starbucks gig. There’s so little intellectual stimulation available in that setting. If you managed to learn more from your fast food than your humanities degree, then I think that’s on you for not paying attention at college (perhaps because you were exhausted from your job?).
quixoticaxolotl [3 hidden]5 mins ago
Helping a mega-corporation make an extra buck is not "service to society".
If you meant doing a service job at a small business, where you can have real ownership over how it treats its customers, I would agree with you.
pohl [3 hidden]5 mins ago
But will it help those baristas pay off the student loans that paid for their philosophy degrees?
fearmerchant [3 hidden]5 mins ago
Ok, you got me. It took me a minute.
airstrike [3 hidden]5 mins ago
and famously doesn't require a degree
sleepybrett [3 hidden]5 mins ago
... and why would they train for a job where everything they say that seeks to curtail expansion would be ignored.
em500 [3 hidden]5 mins ago
This article seems high on vibes, low on metrics.
> While a plain-vanilla philosophy degree remains as hard to monetize as ever, David Chalmers, a prominent philosopher of consciousness at N.Y.U., observes: “I think the demand for philosophers with A.I. training is, if anything, outstripping the supply right now. It’s an area I encourage students to go into. I think these issues with A.I. will be front and center for a good while.”
But wait, there's this:
> Beyond nonprofits like Eleos, most of the hiring has been concentrated at DeepMind and Anthropic, each of which employs at least a half-dozen philosophers.
So, between 6 and 12 each?
taeric [3 hidden]5 mins ago
Wow, it is hard not to immediately think of that meme. There are indeed dozens of them!
alfiedotwtf [3 hidden]5 mins ago
> a prominent philosopher of consciousness at N.Y.U., observes…
The irony
fellowniusmonk [3 hidden]5 mins ago
The revenge of the _nearly a dozen_ philosophers.
consensus1 [3 hidden]5 mins ago
Philosophy majors. That piece of paper does not make you a philosopher.
c7b [3 hidden]5 mins ago
Bit of a tangent, but it's fun to think about how much it takes to become a -er, -ian or -ist in a given field. Philosophy is probably one of the hardest, you need to be seen as up there with the all-time greats. In history or physics you probably need to be faculty, in economics you need to have a PhD, in engineering you don't even need a degree but you need to be practicing,...
chasd00 [3 hidden]5 mins ago
> you need to be seen as up there with the all-time greats
when in school i hung out with a lot of architecture students. They were all told and taught that they will be the next Frank Lloyd Wright or a failure. Then they graduate and end up getting a job drawing construction documents for Taco Bell. Heh they're a pretty jaded bunch.
keiferski [3 hidden]5 mins ago
I studied analytic philosophy, which is basically an education in how to clarify your thoughts, say what you mean in precise terms, and make clear arguments. IMO there is no better preparation for any sort of writing-and-thinking job than studying analytic philosophy, although of course I am biased.
Not sure I’d recommend doing only a philosophy degree, but I highly recommend pairing it with something else more employable. CS and Philosophy seems like the best pairing for the direction tech is going.
cmrdporcupine [3 hidden]5 mins ago
And I studied continental philosophy! Which is the opposite!
Now I program to be less stochastic
:)
(Dropped out in my 3rd year to join the .com boom)
keiferski [3 hidden]5 mins ago
Aha, continental philosophy is definitely worth learning as well. I don’t share the disdain many analytic people have for continentals.
However I don’t think it’ll make you better at writing clearly, unfortunately…
antonvs [3 hidden]5 mins ago
It is only within the horizon of a presumed transparency - already inscribed by the metaphysics of immediacy - that the demand for “clarity” emerges as an unquestioned norm. Thus the Continental philosopher, precisely insofar as they decline this foreclosure of meaning, demonstrates beyond ambiguity that they are entirely capable of writing clearly, choosing instead, with impeccable lucidity, not to.
seydor [3 hidden]5 mins ago
Dont you think that ANN research is upwards of philosophy in the ordo cognoscendi
keiferski [3 hidden]5 mins ago
Can you rephrase that in simpler terms? I don’t understand what you’re asking.
cgyvbunji [3 hidden]5 mins ago
In summary, AI has tricked a bunch of philosophy majors into not only thinking it's more than linear algebra but changing their entire life trajectories because of their confusion. AI seems to be a very alluring tar pit for the non-technical. The sad part is how this negative externality of AI is being actively encouraged for political ends.
consensus1 [3 hidden]5 mins ago
The strange part is that they seemed to have tricked AI companies too.
b450 [3 hidden]5 mins ago
Philosophy students tend to be understandably insecure about the value and prestige of their field, and study often ends up indirectly training students to defend philosophy. Impressive-sounding pontificating, problematizing, cranking out arguments and fallacies and refutations, deploying jargon and historical references. There's a whole toolkit used to dazzle, bewilder, and cow the untrained. Not to mention outright self-promotion, like Chalmers in this article: oh yeah these companies totally desperately need more philosophy graduates!
It's great preparation for law school, as a commenter has already pointed out, since skill in one game carries over to the other. The value of philosophy outside a self-referential intellectual game is extremely dubious, and I think one can reasonably argue that philosophical training does more harm than good by inculcating bizarre/narrow/counterproductive intellectual habits/commitments/bugaboos. But philosophers have tricked themselves into places where they really have no business being, like hospital ethics panels. Cool for these guys though, it seems harmless.
samrus [3 hidden]5 mins ago
> The value of philosophy outside a self-referential intellectual game is extremely dubious
I wouldnt go that far. I think your clutching at straws a little bit. Its a real stretch from philosohers are insecure to they are useless. This is the sort of thing confident ignorance gets you, when you dont know how philophy impacts mpdern life so you assume it doesnt because you think you know everything
mkovach [3 hidden]5 mins ago
I've spent a surprising amount of time reading philosophy of language, and it's probably done more for my AI prompting than most of the "prompt engineering" articles I've read.
Speech Act Theory, Austin's How to Do Things with Words, and Searle's work changed how I think about prompts. Instead of asking, "What words should I use?", I ask, "What action am I trying to perform?" Is this a request? A commitment? A declaration? An instruction? It turns out LLMs respond differently when you think in terms of acts instead of sentences. With AI able to hallucinate context, facts, intent, and answers, keeping AI on track is much like herding cats.
I've been borrowing those ideas for prompts, reusable skills, and even governance. The side effect of making me look smarter than I really am.
I even ended up writing an article about baseball umpires through the lens of Speech Act Theory: https://pitcherlist.com/umpires-dont-make-calls-they-make-hi.... Baseball, as usual, turns out to be an excellent way to explain philosophy. Or philosophy is an excellent way to explain baseball. I'm currently working on a update, since the ABS challenge system helps improve my position.
My suspicion is philosophy has a lot more to offer AI than ethics alone. Philosophy of language seems like an obvious fit, but epistemology ("what does it mean to know?") and philosophy of mind also seem increasingly practical once you're building systems instead of just chatting with them.
Maybe the shortage isn't philosophy majors. Maybe it's people who can translate philosophy into engineering without making everyone read Kant first.
Heavens, that got wordy, sorry about that.
antonvs [3 hidden]5 mins ago
> Heavens, that got wordy, sorry about that.
The mark of a true philosopher.
godwinson__4-8 [3 hidden]5 mins ago
David Chalmers has been doing this for a long time. The fun thing about successful philosophers is it is a very small club and given their nature a lot of them have kind of humorous beef with each other. To make a name for yourself you often have to find a credible target whose intelligence you can insult. This sort of philosophical rivalry is a common historical occurrence as well, and common to the nature of philosophy itself. As such, it feels wrong to mention Chalmers without mentioning some of his famous detractors.
When I was in college, a philosophy degree was seen as excellent training for a career in Law.
wongarsu [3 hidden]5 mins ago
Both professions require writing detailed, overly specific, reasonably watertight arguments that will be read by only a handful of people, so that tracks
datakan [3 hidden]5 mins ago
Arguments so watertight that none of them ever agree with each other and have argued for thousands of years without a resolution to even the most basic of questions.
programjames [3 hidden]5 mins ago
The appearance of a logical argument is easier to achieve and often good enough for their purposes (publishing papers, winning lawsuits).
SoftTalker [3 hidden]5 mins ago
Using a vocabulary that is known only to themselves.
palmotea [3 hidden]5 mins ago
> Using a vocabulary that is known only to themselves.
So? Almost all professions have jargon known only to themselves. You think most people have any clue what a garbage collector is?
antonvs [3 hidden]5 mins ago
A monad is just a monoid in the category of endofunctors, after all.
kriro [3 hidden]5 mins ago
But a law degree is probably even better. I know what you mean though, consulting companies also hire the (top 1-3%) philosophy majors and math/physics majors for the same reason. Good thought processes.
keiferski [3 hidden]5 mins ago
Philosophy undergrad here and yeah I’d say law school was the typical next step. A few medical school as well.
seydor [3 hidden]5 mins ago
They are also hiring cooks and cleaners, talk about their revenge
datakan [3 hidden]5 mins ago
Same group
MSkill1 [3 hidden]5 mins ago
I would much rather hear that they were hiring theoretical logicians than philosophers.We could use more people exploring the limits of prepositional and propositional logic and set theory than we need philosophy. AI is never going to become conscious, at least not the kind we have right now.
speak_plainly [3 hidden]5 mins ago
You do realize that propositional logic, set theory, and mapping the limits of formal systems are philosophy, right? You're literally describing mathematical logic and philosophy of language.
programjames [3 hidden]5 mins ago
Logicians' training is so different from philosophers' that it should be considered a separate discipline, or under the branch of computer science.
matltc [3 hidden]5 mins ago
I got a degree in philosophy. Couldn't be less interested in this kind of job. I hate philosophy now
One of my biggest regrets is not getting into this stuff when I was in school.
Didn't know about tech at all when I was going, just picked whatever was easy to major in and somewhat bearable. Had zero interest in school until later adulthood
giantg2 [3 hidden]5 mins ago
"Beyond nonprofits like Eleos, most of the hiring has been concentrated at DeepMind and Anthropic, each of which employs at least a half-dozen philosophers."
I would hardly call that the revenge of the philosophy majors.
kriro [3 hidden]5 mins ago
I find it a bit strange to assume you can only understand these topics with a philosophy degree. My CS degree had a good chunk of philosophy baked in (philosophy of science) and parts of it strongly encouraged you to dive into philosophy. AI 101 introduced me to Gödel for example and logic in general.
From the article it seems like they mostly do "is AI conscious" and ethics work. Call me a skeptic (no pun intended) but it looks like "hiring some philosophers to confirm the things we want to keep saying for the sweet AGI-race-$$$ to flow". Kind of like these tobacco studies way back when.
dmfdmf [3 hidden]5 mins ago
This is an interesting development. I think trying to program a computer to be "intelligent" without a valid theory of concepts is a fool's errand.
lapcat [3 hidden]5 mins ago
> “Where are they, the great next philosophers, the equivalents of Kant or Wittgenstein or even Aristotle?” the DeepMind co-founder Demis Hassabis wondered on a podcast last year.
According to (later) Wittgenstein, philosophy is basically a bad habit that needs breaking.
throw4847285 [3 hidden]5 mins ago
That's a common misunderstanding of Wittgenstein, and it's intellectually lazy.
It's funny how many years I had to spend in philosophy grad school to become "intellectually lazy".
cmiles8 [3 hidden]5 mins ago
When the AI bubble cools these roles will be eliminated faster than you can blink. Mark my words.
mykowebhn [3 hidden]5 mins ago
Agreed. Similarly, we had in-house chefs who were full-time employees. They were some of the first people laid-off when the Covid downturn hit.
esafak [3 hidden]5 mins ago
We had great chefs; miss them!
andrewclunn [3 hidden]5 mins ago
> But Mr. Long’s trajectory and Google’s new hire were in keeping with a quietly building trend: A.I. labs, and the related nonprofits around them, have been recruiting workers as versed in Consequentialism and John Stuart Mill as in neural networks and reinforcement learning. While a plain-vanilla philosophy degree remains as hard to monetize as ever, David Chalmers, a prominent philosopher of consciousness at N.Y.U., observes: “I think the demand for philosophers with A.I. training is, if anything, outstripping the supply right now. It’s an area I encourage students to go into. I think these issues with A.I. will be front and center for a good while.”
Could it be? Did all that concern and daydreaming regarding how to safely wish for something from a malicious Jinn (and other such thought experiments) have a use?
etcimon [3 hidden]5 mins ago
It does have a use but not in the colloquial sense, history is plastered with bad winners yielding to their predatory instincts and a malicious Jinn is one of infinite ways you can visualize something that pulls/pushes into the abyss for a competitive comparative sense of superiority. Understanding it doesn't make it happen less because the phenomena exhibits in circles that mock thought itself. But taking it into consideration in thought does tend to improve the outcome of novelty the same way an engineer looks as Murphy's Law as a warning not to seek positive thoughts for the sake of it but look at failure modes because they're central to good design
setopt [3 hidden]5 mins ago
It seems everything has a use if you wait long enough. Number theory also seemed famously unapplyable until modern digital cryptography came along, and same with non-Euclidean geometry before general relativity.
It was really just the luck of the draw for me ending up in the undergrad program that I did, but every day I am grateful to have spent both my degrees and a decade mostly just teaching Kant or Descartes and reading Derrida, Marx, Lacan, Merleau-Ponty, Levinas, Deleuze, etc. Meaningful, sometimes beautiful, thought which maybe never made me feel "smarter" than other people, but undeniably taught me how to live and navigate the world.
That is, instead of the Analytic hokum these nerds are selling to literal billionaires! Can you imagine the meetings these guys are having?
There's about 20 philosophers employed by AI labs worldwide, vs 1000s of software engineers, product managers, designers, etc. There's probably more economists working in these labs than philosophers...
there was literature about 15 years or so ago stating Philosophy as being uncommonly lucrative course of study, in part citing Reid Hoffman
it is a way of thinking
Debatable. We may need to ask a philosopher.
While there is “no right answer” understanding what the issues are and how the discussion plays out is relevant.
If you meant doing a service job at a small business, where you can have real ownership over how it treats its customers, I would agree with you.
> While a plain-vanilla philosophy degree remains as hard to monetize as ever, David Chalmers, a prominent philosopher of consciousness at N.Y.U., observes: “I think the demand for philosophers with A.I. training is, if anything, outstripping the supply right now. It’s an area I encourage students to go into. I think these issues with A.I. will be front and center for a good while.”
But wait, there's this:
> Beyond nonprofits like Eleos, most of the hiring has been concentrated at DeepMind and Anthropic, each of which employs at least a half-dozen philosophers.
So, between 6 and 12 each?
The irony
when in school i hung out with a lot of architecture students. They were all told and taught that they will be the next Frank Lloyd Wright or a failure. Then they graduate and end up getting a job drawing construction documents for Taco Bell. Heh they're a pretty jaded bunch.
Not sure I’d recommend doing only a philosophy degree, but I highly recommend pairing it with something else more employable. CS and Philosophy seems like the best pairing for the direction tech is going.
Now I program to be less stochastic
:)
(Dropped out in my 3rd year to join the .com boom)
However I don’t think it’ll make you better at writing clearly, unfortunately…
It's great preparation for law school, as a commenter has already pointed out, since skill in one game carries over to the other. The value of philosophy outside a self-referential intellectual game is extremely dubious, and I think one can reasonably argue that philosophical training does more harm than good by inculcating bizarre/narrow/counterproductive intellectual habits/commitments/bugaboos. But philosophers have tricked themselves into places where they really have no business being, like hospital ethics panels. Cool for these guys though, it seems harmless.
I wouldnt go that far. I think your clutching at straws a little bit. Its a real stretch from philosohers are insecure to they are useless. This is the sort of thing confident ignorance gets you, when you dont know how philophy impacts mpdern life so you assume it doesnt because you think you know everything
Speech Act Theory, Austin's How to Do Things with Words, and Searle's work changed how I think about prompts. Instead of asking, "What words should I use?", I ask, "What action am I trying to perform?" Is this a request? A commitment? A declaration? An instruction? It turns out LLMs respond differently when you think in terms of acts instead of sentences. With AI able to hallucinate context, facts, intent, and answers, keeping AI on track is much like herding cats.
I've been borrowing those ideas for prompts, reusable skills, and even governance. The side effect of making me look smarter than I really am.
I even ended up writing an article about baseball umpires through the lens of Speech Act Theory: https://pitcherlist.com/umpires-dont-make-calls-they-make-hi.... Baseball, as usual, turns out to be an excellent way to explain philosophy. Or philosophy is an excellent way to explain baseball. I'm currently working on a update, since the ABS challenge system helps improve my position.
My suspicion is philosophy has a lot more to offer AI than ethics alone. Philosophy of language seems like an obvious fit, but epistemology ("what does it mean to know?") and philosophy of mind also seem increasingly practical once you're building systems instead of just chatting with them.
Maybe the shortage isn't philosophy majors. Maybe it's people who can translate philosophy into engineering without making everyone read Kant first.
Heavens, that got wordy, sorry about that.
The mark of a true philosopher.
Personally, I miss when Dennett was around to tell Chalmers he was being annoying. https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2017/03/27/daniel-dennett...
So? Almost all professions have jargon known only to themselves. You think most people have any clue what a garbage collector is?
One of my biggest regrets is not getting into this stuff when I was in school. Didn't know about tech at all when I was going, just picked whatever was easy to major in and somewhat bearable. Had zero interest in school until later adulthood
I would hardly call that the revenge of the philosophy majors.
From the article it seems like they mostly do "is AI conscious" and ethics work. Call me a skeptic (no pun intended) but it looks like "hiring some philosophers to confirm the things we want to keep saying for the sweet AGI-race-$$$ to flow". Kind of like these tobacco studies way back when.
According to (later) Wittgenstein, philosophy is basically a bad habit that needs breaking.
It's funny how many years I had to spend in philosophy grad school to become "intellectually lazy".
Could it be? Did all that concern and daydreaming regarding how to safely wish for something from a malicious Jinn (and other such thought experiments) have a use?
That is, instead of the Analytic hokum these nerds are selling to literal billionaires! Can you imagine the meetings these guys are having?