I’m not sure I agree—I think historically I made the opposite mistake, and from a rough guess the average new grad student at top CS programs tends to look too much for straightforward new projects (in part because you needed to have a paper in undergrad to get in, and therefore have probably done a project that was pretty straightforward and timeboxed).
I do think many early SERI MATS mentees did make the mistake you describe though, so maybe amongst people who are reading this post, the average person considering mentorship (who is not the average grad student) would indeed make your mistake?
Yep, I think theLaw of Equal and Opposite Advice applies here.
One piece of advice which is pretty robust is — You should be about to explain your project to any other MATS mentee/mentor in about 3 minutes, along with the background context, motivation, theory of impact, success criteria, etc. If the inferential distance from the average MATS mentee/mentor exceed 3 minutes, then your project is probably either too vague or too esoteric.
(I say this as someone who should have followed this advice more strictly.)
I’d guess this varies by field? I think this would be bad advice in mech interp—there’s a lot of concepts and existing mech interp theory that you need to understand a bunch of good projects, and people new to the field are often bad at explaining these (and, importantly, I think I have decent judgement about whether a project is any good). But I’d guess this is decent advice in some areas of alignment.
I’m not sure I agree—I think historically I made the opposite mistake, and from a rough guess the average new grad student at top CS programs tends to look too much for straightforward new projects (in part because you needed to have a paper in undergrad to get in, and therefore have probably done a project that was pretty straightforward and timeboxed).
I do think many early SERI MATS mentees did make the mistake you describe though, so maybe amongst people who are reading this post, the average person considering mentorship (who is not the average grad student) would indeed make your mistake?
Yep, I think the Law of Equal and Opposite Advice applies here.
One piece of advice which is pretty robust is — You should be about to explain your project to any other MATS mentee/mentor in about 3 minutes, along with the background context, motivation, theory of impact, success criteria, etc. If the inferential distance from the average MATS mentee/mentor exceed 3 minutes, then your project is probably either too vague or too esoteric.
(I say this as someone who should have followed this advice more strictly.)
I’d guess this varies by field? I think this would be bad advice in mech interp—there’s a lot of concepts and existing mech interp theory that you need to understand a bunch of good projects, and people new to the field are often bad at explaining these (and, importantly, I think I have decent judgement about whether a project is any good). But I’d guess this is decent advice in some areas of alignment.