The most honest answer you’re going to get here is this : We’re in the most uncertain time in human history as far the future goes. No one’s knows what the job market will look like 10 (or even 5) years from now. No one here can tell you for certain what will be a good move or a bad one. Just make a decision you trust at this moment in time and buckle up for the ride like the rest of us.👍

Don't bother. Study something that you will be able to use in the next 5-6+ years, because if the singularity is actually a thing it'll make all of your past efforts moot -- unless you were right at the bleeding edge of the technology at the start of the singularity.

Here's my logic: 30 plus years of education and experience compared to 30 years of jacking off to cartoons means nothing if we can boost both scientist and slacker IQ to 600 with an injection of proteins and nanomachines. Then we put their brains in an aroused state and give them 12 years of additional university education in a week.

What do our super-geniuses do next? Can't say, but in such a scenario the education and experience of the scientist doesn't give them that much more of an edge after their IQ gets boosted to 600. So now there's a real question of whether the scientist was spending their time productively, given how obsolete past experiences were to future progression after the mind augmentations. The slacker can make a real argument that they wasted less of their time than the scientist (unless the scientist was working on the pill, of course), especially if both of them go on to make discoveries that eclipse anything the unaugmented scientist could or did find previously.

Of course, if a singularity isn't possible, the scientist didn't necessary waste their time. But while researching the singularity to see if it is actually possible is a worthwhile endeavor -- even if it turns out if it's not -- most people interested in the topic seem to think that it's possible, or at least desirable.

Thank you! That sounds very uncertain, but also very exciting. So many possibilities, and the future depends on the events and discoveries that are going to take place in the present. Glad to be alive in such times when the pace of progress is so fast.

We still have so much to understand, and most careers are probably not going to be significant impacted, but as you said, the job market might look very different, so I'll just try to keep up.

Neurology, neuroscience, biotechnology, computer science and programming cover most of what you describe. You should get multiple PhD in these fields.

Best of luck

Thank you!

I am going to keep that in mind while making decisions. I am not planning to do something completely useless or irrelevant to the present job market, because I too need to sustain myself and my research activities, and I'll try to be at the cutting-edge yet be prepared of all contingencies.

I don't see any flaw with your logic, sounds good, except we need to develop such an injection first. There's also a very interesting thing there in your argument, something I have thought about a lot in the last few months.

It's basically this: If the scientist really enjoys doing science, regardless of what the future holds for him that makes his efforts redundant, and if the slacker likes whatever he is doing, why is one better than the other? Just because one has interests and aptitude that is looked upon more favourably by the society, even though both are just following their passions and natural inclinations?

Another thing to consider here is that if a scenario such as what you proposed would come true, the scientist would never regret doing what he did, because he could never imagine being someone like the slacker jerking off to cartoons for years.

He simple can't, because his genes and early environment predisposed him in a way that only made him satisfied with his actions when he did science, and if he even tried doing what the slacker was doing, he'd instantly get buried with regret and intense dissatisfaction. That holds true even if he wasn't working on the pill. A similar point could possibly be made for the slacker, but I'm not sure.

Another point is that both the scientist and the slacker made the decision for how they wanted to spend their time and what career they wanted to do (or not do) at a time when they didn't have adequate information about the singularity (like today) and so they went ahead with whatever information was available to them and any other constraints and goals they happened to have.

Why does that matter? Because I believe that a decision should be judged by all the information that was available to the person at the time he made it, and it would remain a good or bad decisions regardless of what the future holds. So the scientist may have thought that singularity or not, they like science, and this is what they want to do with their life, and so even after the singularity, their decision was a good one.

On the other hand, the slacker might have thought the even if there were no singularity, maybe life is meaningless or they are a pathetic loser not smart enough to do science or that they adjust don't feel like it and choose to rely upon the singularity even though it was uncertain if such a thing would occur in the future. He was willing to take the risk, and bear the cost if singularity didn't take place, so he also took an informed decision (hopefully).

I agree with your last paragraph- even if it's not possible, it's still uncertain, and the best case scenario, the expected benefits if there's even a tiny chance that it's possible, would be worth any amount of resources that we could put into doing research on it, and the scientist would have done science anyway, so even if he's the one who finds out the singularity isn't possible, no time wasted.

Haha. Thank you. I'm not sure if you meant it seriously, I respect your advice, and this is something I myself used to think not too far back in the future- I'd get multiple doctorates and combine all these fields and learn everything!- but then I read stuff written by other people, heard what they have to say, and realized that multiple PhDs is looked down upon in academia as it shows you weren't able to decide what it is that you're interested in, and that you have "perpetual student syndrome"..

So that was discouraging at first, but then I realized that I don't need any sort of credentials to do what I want, and I can just learn everything by myself and with the help of the professionals who have those credentials, no need to get a piece of paper from institutions that tell me what I'm capable of.

Thought I still do plan to major in multiple disciplines, and I was happy to discover there were things like joint PhDs, Interdisciplinary PhDs and MD-PhDs, and I might just end up doing it anyway but I'm not as hell bent on it as my younger self who used to think that these credentials are necessary to gain the knowledge necessary to make new inventions and discoveries; I no longer have any such delusions, at least I think I do.

Of course, I might be wrong, and I'd be happy to change my mind if you share your perspective and present me with convincing logical reasons, but that's just my current opinion, and what I think about multiple doctorates.

My comment was meant to be serious although I personally believe that, depending on your age, you might be missing out on the real progress in those fields by just a few decades. As of today your goals are unfortunately in the science fiction territory more than actual science territory. Still, there are plenty of good career options available for you that will scratch that itch while providing a decent living.

If I were just starting out in choosing a career path these days, I think I'd go into the trades, with an eye towards eventually owning my own business. Still a long ways off from robotic plumbers, HVAC repair, electricians. We'll always need people with hands on skills to keep the basic infrastructure going.

Hmm I see. I turned 19 very recently, and I suspect what you say is true, because it'll remain sci-fi for my life, or it'll be so fast that we are able to witness the rise of true AI this decade, I don't know.

But I'll still try to work on my research interest while not neglecting financial security (and possible financial independence) to carry out my research activities, regardless of the outcome. Thank you!

Getting a PhD is not really about learning a lot in a particular field—it’s about contributing or demonstrating the ability to contribute to the research of that field. The process of getting a PhD involves or requires a lot of knowledge in some academic discipline, so it’s great if you are interested in learning about that area, but what you’ve researched—your dissertation (or equivalent)—is really what your PhD is.

As a PhD, I personally wouldn’t necessarily look down on someone with multiple PhDs, but I’d wonder why they chose to do that. Wanting knowledge from multiple areas is not a good reason because (1) you can learn things without getting a degree, (2) you could use multiple areas of knowledge to get a single PhD, and (3) you could do further research in an academic position, like postdoc or professor. Sadly, the third reason is easier said than done, but is not any easier with multiple PhDs—actually much harder—so why bother?

In my opinion, wanting to know about multiple fields is neither a bad thing nor particularly special. The trick is to have a life where you have the opportunities to do the research you want. What you get a PhD in should ideally be whatever helps you get on that path.

From what little I know from this thread, it sounds like you should be someone considering getting a PhD. My suggestion is to start looking at what graduate students and professors are working on. Try to start being a part of the academic world as soon as possible, which means independent research but also taking advantage of the academic community at your university.

As for what field you should study considering future technology and society, my opinion is to forget about all that. Definitely think about what you should avoid studying based on what the future holds (although I think those concerns are exaggerated), but don’t study something because it may be the next big thing. Study what you’re interested in and what can help you get the type of job and have the type of life you want.

Thank you! That's an interesting perspective, because even though most of my interests are theoretical and intellectual, I've been planning to get involved in more practical and hands-on activities lately. I'll definitely consider that.

But if the point of doing that is just to make sure that your job isn't taken over by robots, wouldn't it be better to go with something even more robot-proof such as, say, teaching, therapy, politics or medicine, because they involve human interaction and that would be the last thing to be automated. What do you think?

There was a study by Oxford a few years back on which jobs are the most likely to be taken over, and it had similar conclusions, though I read it a while ago so I don't remember the exact details. You might be interested in checking it out: https://www.oxfordmartin.ox.ac.uk/downloads/academic/future-of-employment.pdf

All I know is the world's oldest documented career is likely to be still kicking strong no matter how advanced we get.

People facing jobs will continue to thrive, but be careful of teaching- a passion type career, few make much money...

That makes sense, the point about PhD being contributing to the field with novel research rather than just acquiring large amounts of knowledge. I thought that a PhD involves specializing in a very narrow subtopic of a discipline, but recently I have discovered that there exist interdisciplinary and joint PhDs that allow you to tackle a subject from multiple disciplines. That might be what you are talking about, and what is more aligned with my plans. I'll definitely look into it.

I'm also reaching out to professors and researchers working on my research interests and trying to get in touch with them. I do intend to eventually get a PhD, so I plan to do the right things during my undergraduate years to maximize my chances of getting into the PhD program of my choice and develop the skills needed to carry out independent research.

I like the point about not studying what seems to be the next big thing, and just going with what's the most popular thing and basing such important career decisions based on such unreliable criteria, I'll make sure to not fall for such traps. I'll work on what I find interesting and also allows me some degree of financial security.

I'll also try to choose something that won't be automated anytime soon. Plus I was planning to study neuroscience and psychology but this comment has made me seriously reconsider that decision: https://www.reddit.com/r/singularity/comments/10pvu7z/comment/j6mq8tg/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web2x&context=3

Anyway, I'll try to make an informed decision based on my interests, abilities, financial prospects, and the type of life I want, as you said. Thank you very much for sharing your comments.

Yes, I agree. The same thing you said about teaching could be said about research too. I'll try to keep that in mind while making decisions, thank you.

I have a interdisciplinary PhD (media arts and technology). Personally, I think any PhD could pull from multiple disciplines and, really, most dissertations must to some extent. If you are doing something new in your field, you need to at least check what is relevant in other fields.

It’s good to know interdisciplinary programs are an option, and I wish I knew sooner, but I’d recommend joining one only if there’s a good reason. In other words, I’d suggest looking into a more typical program by default. The reason is that you will have to work with established disciplines at some point. For teaching positions, you will probably need to demonstrate both that you can do innovative research (thus the requirement of a dissertation) and that you can teach more broadly. And just generally, academics are actually pretty conservative as a whole, so you’ll have to fit your research into their view. Having a PhD in an established discipline just makes it easier to do that.

But the programs are still useful. For me, it would have been pretty difficult to get into a music or art program based on my past studies and work. I wouldn’t necessarily plan on doing that from the start though, because I could have studied music and engineering (for example) from my undergraduate degree onward.

Wall Street Journal headline tomorrow: After a 5000 Year Decline, Is Hunting And Gathering Finally Making a Comeback?

/s I know what you mean

Getting a PhD and working in academics is usually about slowly inching forward our theoretical understanding in an obscure corner of knowledge known to your small circle of a hundred or so fellow academics.

If that is not for you and you get more out of seeing your work affect the real world and/or building things you will see in use than advancing theory, may I recommend looking into engineering, computer/data science, or medicine (MD)? These fields are very flexible and you can lean into the more research oriented side and work in R&D as an engineer/computer scientist or in research/clinical trials as an MD, or even bring those skills fully to an academic setting where they are highly valuable. Additionally, you can much more easily pivot if your desires in life change.

PhD is a big commitment and I just would make sure you understand it is typically hyper focused on advancing very very specific, very niche knowledge that may not ever see real world application in your lifetime, so if you need that part for fulfillment, PhD might not be optimal for you. Coming from someone who spent many years in academics before becoming an R&D engineer at a company, which I love.

I can’t speak personally about the MD experience, but there’s an old saying about the difference in motivation between scientists and engineers which might be helpful:

Scientist: you build in order to learn things

Engineer: you learn in order to build things

I would not be surprised if that is an article sometime. The body of the article would be meandering nothing that generally means "hunter gethering is not making a comback but people are hinting deer more". But some hack wrote it as clickbait to fulfill their daily quota.

That career will be replaced by robots

>It's basically this: If the scientist really enjoys doing science, regardless of what the future holds for him that makes his efforts redundant, and if the slacker likes whatever he is doing, why is one better than the other? Just because one has interests and aptitude that is looked upon more favourably by the society, even though both are just following their passions and natural inclinations?

I have done the 'follow your dreams, regardless of how much the job market likes it' dance before. It did not work out for me. I pretty much wasted years of my life on a career path I found I could just not continue; I made do and pinched pennies until household debt caught up with me and I realize I was in a cycle of having to pay part of my rent with credit -- then I bit the bullet and switched jobs back to what I should have picked.

I am still paying off debt from that adventure. Sure, I learned a bunch of things and have a career path most salesmen or engineers would never have dreamed of... but I'd have rather have the mental health of not stressing out about whether my $500 overdraft can cover rent or having to surrender years worth of possessions because I literally cannot afford to pay the cross-country moving company the final delivery fee. No matter how enjoyable I found the work, my fulfillment could not overcome the misery of being broke and becoming worse off every month.

And I got lucky. Several times over the past years I've come within a hair's breadth of breaking my leg or totaling my car or missing a rent payment.

I have a path out of this whole mess, but it's ugly. I'd have rather not have followed my heart in the first place.

...

You won't hear stories like mine, because our society prefers to downplay and even lie about the risks of valuing anything more than money.

Value the money first, chase your dreams later. You can't enjoy your life if you're constantly stressing about being one accident or pink slip away from homelessness.

Eh just study programming and work at a big tech firm. Seems to make more sense than this Plan