There’s a part in that talk that has always stuck with me: he advises to ask yourself at every Friday evening, "What are the important problems in my field?" Not entirely dissimilar from PG’s take on how the educational system in forcing you to commit prematurely often has you overlook this entirely.
In the vein of "great minds think alike," both of them hammer home the importance of working on what genuinely grabs your interest. PG's advice is to "optimize for interestingness" ; Hamming when he says, "If you do not work on an important problem, it's unlikely you'll do important work."
I got a kick out of how both of them advocate for being flexible in our approach to work — especially given how launching and pivoting after learning from your users has also been the PG advice for the better part of two decades in startup-focused essays. PG's all for switching horses mid-race if a more exciting problem shows up , and Hamming shares the same sentiment, stressing the importance of being ready to seize new opportunities. Today pivoting is just default vernacular in startup world, but also cutting losses and getting that fractal and pushing that to its end is worth it.
Curious how has "optimizing for interestingness" played out in your own work or life? Additionally, curious if there are any good HN stories about pursuing research and “pivoting” in fields that are not searching for product-market/fit for a startup…
There's an unspoken aspect of the word "important" here — important to you, or important to the world (society, etc)?
From Hamming:
"I thought hard about where was my field going, where were the opportunities, and what were the important things to do. Let me go there so there is a chance I can do important things."
It seems he is talking about the important to the world aspect. He wants to have a big impact on the world, and be where the action is. The goal is to make a name for yourself, or to at least have a hand in the next big transformations.
But there is also the "important to you" aspect. In Hamming's case, those two notions of importance align. But not so for everyone.
Quoting again:
"I went home one Friday after finishing a problem, and curiously enough I wasn't happy; I was depressed. I could see life being a long sequence of one problem after another after another."
So, he is happiest when working on problems that have big "important" implications for the world. Good for him; I'm glad he discovered that about himself, and followed what made him happy.
So now for my actual point: I'd encourage a person to actually first and foremost focus on what is important to them personally — what makes them happy — rather than what seems "important" from some external perspective.
I think a lot of people will decide, like Hamming did, that they want to be where the action is, that they want to participate in transforming the world, that that is what makes them happy. But to put that choice on a pedestal as though it is the True Goal — to put "important to society" above "important to oneself" is putting the cart before the horse. It's how you get a bunch of unhappy people chasing after other people's dreams.
It's actually somewhat touched upon in TFA, with:
"The following recipe assumes you're very ambitious."
Indeed — like Hamming was. But not everyone is, and not everyone needs to be to be happy. I am just slightly irked by our somehow reserving the word "great" for ambitious people's accomplishments.
>I think a lot of people will decide, like Hamming did, that they want to be where the action is, that they want to participate in transforming the world, that that is what makes them happy.
In my 37 years of experience: people do want to be where the action is, but many people who are the main examples of 'being at the action' already were at a location where the action happened to end up. I.e., people working for a long time on an 'obscure' problem interesting to them suddenly see that 'obscure' problem become important and fall into success (think of all the CS people working on DL/ANNs in the 90s. I don't think Yann LeCunn was a known name in the 90s).
The tragedy is that it's very hard to predict where the action will be. Literature is full of people who lucked into that position, and obviously ignores the millions who were where the action never ended up.
With some experience you can shift your focus to where you think the action will be: it's probably best not to run after the money, but walk towards it.
Right now, the audio tech/software niche is abuzz with ideas and attempts related to using transformer technology within the field. Music generation, new synthesis techniques, generative DSP and more.
According to the field, viewed from some altitude, these the "important (to the world)" things.
But for myself, with 25+ years in the field, I couldn't give a rat's arse about any of it. Absolutely not "important (to me)".
Am I ambitious (still) ? I think so. But I'm also picky about where I'm willing to put my energy.
Not the industry, but the rush-to-"AI" is certainly over-hyped and displays a very shallow understanding of the role of art of any form for most human beings.
The older I get the more I think this is fine, and more or less the way of the world.
Let the young ones expend their energy and drive trying to do all kinds of weird, pointless and occassionally very useful shit while we keep the world running.
Then I realized that the funny part is that PG has already linked to Hamming's talk on his site (http://www.paulgraham.com/hamming.html), and mentioned it on Twitter (https://twitter.com/paulg/status/849300780997890048).
There’s a part in that talk that has always stuck with me: he advises to ask yourself at every Friday evening, "What are the important problems in my field?" Not entirely dissimilar from PG’s take on how the educational system in forcing you to commit prematurely often has you overlook this entirely.
In the vein of "great minds think alike," both of them hammer home the importance of working on what genuinely grabs your interest. PG's advice is to "optimize for interestingness" ; Hamming when he says, "If you do not work on an important problem, it's unlikely you'll do important work."
I got a kick out of how both of them advocate for being flexible in our approach to work — especially given how launching and pivoting after learning from your users has also been the PG advice for the better part of two decades in startup-focused essays. PG's all for switching horses mid-race if a more exciting problem shows up , and Hamming shares the same sentiment, stressing the importance of being ready to seize new opportunities. Today pivoting is just default vernacular in startup world, but also cutting losses and getting that fractal and pushing that to its end is worth it.
Curious how has "optimizing for interestingness" played out in your own work or life? Additionally, curious if there are any good HN stories about pursuing research and “pivoting” in fields that are not searching for product-market/fit for a startup…
(Hamming’s talk has been shared countless times here and this feels like PG’s contribution to a similar idea (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35778036)).