Tyler Mills

The Fountainhead is on my list. Listened to ‘The Simplest Thing in the World’. One message seems to be that one's creativity will continuously resist attempts to coerce it into doing something it doesn't want. A will of its own. I feel such resistance acutely at this current job, more so but no differently than during previous jobs and assignments, as we all have. But what is the import of the story to the present debate? My creative muse will continue fighting me so long as I'm trying to steer it towards other things? I have no doubt. The questions here are over what is practical, secure and strategic, all largely in the financial sense--or so I think. Where does one draw the line between passion and security? Maybe there is no general-purpose explanation. I will continue reflecting.

I find this point irrefutable, aside from the risk being educated or calculated... Maybe it is those things...
What I would ultimately love to do is pivot into AGI research as a career, but when is pursuing that educated risk-taking vs fantasy?

This brings us back to our conversation about discipline. Maybe we can recapitulate here, or maybe best done elsewhere. Lots of things are excruciating, like homework and exams; should I not have done them? Exercise as well. There seem to be problems which can only be solved by maintaining other problems..!
Should suffering be avoided? Not if it's useful..? I'm still conflicted about this.

Good thought, in general. But the dislocation would take significant time and resources itself. The current lease arrangement also cannot be exited without a heavy fee. I also moved recently, I would love to not do that again for some time.

So far this has proven ineffective, though a skill which could be improved. However, questions remain for me over whether self-disciplining is good, in general, and where to draw the line between coercion and healthy structure.

A related idea is to become more disciplined with my time, getting more out of the off days.

I think I've compressed other activities as much as possible. With the current job, I don't think I can increase focus on research any further. The concerns are over the tradeoffs of leaving the day job (finances, impact to employability, etc.).

Yes, very little time and energy for research while working, a handful of hours a week. The intermittence carries its own cost, I also find.

Option 2: Go on hiatus from the day job/career, and focus on creative pursuits and research, full-time, for some number of months (duration perhaps depending on job opportunities).

Option 1: Continue working the day job and balancing the other pursuits on the side.

Empirically, roles with "a closer relationship with physics, math and design" overwhelmingly seem to be reserved for PhD-holders. So mediocrity may not be to blame for the as-yet inability to land engaging roles. However, both could be factors.

Cf. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elite_overproduction

The failure to have found roles which have a closer relationship with physics, math and design may stem from an underlying mediocrity as an optical engineer; this itself could stem from the underlying (or widespread) disinterest in it within your mind.

The cost of living for several months is not large relative to the amount of money in savings. The opportunity cost and financial strategy points are valid, but pale in comparison to the moral cost of not pursuing what one is passionate about and good at -- especially when there is arguably some potential for value, given the state of the world regarding AI/AGI. Being an employee in an uninteresting field for years or decades is a catastrophic loss, and all too common.

A hiatus would incur a relatively heavy cost: the cost of living + the opportunity cost of lost salary. Earning money as quickly as possible, as early as possible, is important for long-term financial success.

The resume gap can be absolved by simply listing "independent research" for the period in question. Forming an LLC would also help to formalize the venture (in addition to having other uses).

I have a BS + MS in optical engineering, and have had a profitable three or so years in the field as an engineer. I enjoy learning about and applying physics, including optical physics, but this makes up a tiny percentage of the tasks performed as an "engineer" so far in my experience, and I see no sign of change on the horizon. Many of the tasks I am assigned seem eminently automatable, and performing them is excruciating for me (though I recognize my good fortune overall). Even when there are micro-problems which require creativity to solve, I still find the process painful, given that they are other people's problems rather than my own. It is the same pain of school: creativity forced to work toward answers to questions not asked.

So, where to draw the line? I think I have fallen in love with AGI research, having followed the area for years, learning and reading bits and pieces. I've been working on independent research in my free time for over a year, in addition to related content (for several years) which is meaningful, creative, educational, largely very fun to produce -- and perhaps ultimately valuable. I'm confident I could publish ideas which will be of interest to the field, and that I would be happy working on all of these things for many years to come.

The question: Should I take a hiatus from my career to pursue independent research (and related content creation), full-time, for some number of months?

A hiatus would create a "resume gap," weakening hireability in the field. This is to be avoided, but only assuming working in the field is itself desirable, which may not be the case, here, unless better opportunities arise (roles allowing more contact with physics, math and design -- i.e. "engineering"!).