[musgrove]

The only thing a Ph.D. does is teach you how to formulate and defend a thesis, according to traditional philosophical tenents, and possibly using the statistics and relevant courses you took while getting a masters. It doesn't take you further or deeper into your chosen path of study. It enables you to publish research articles, for when/if you become a professor and learn how to navigate ridculous politics within University departments. That's it. If you want ti build AI, then go learn how to do it. Don't waste your time getting a PhD. Your time willbe much better spent and rewarded.

[sabana]

I don't have a Ph.D and I'm not pursuing one, but when you say "It doesn't take you further or deeper into your chosen path of study"that says to me that you don't understand what a Ph.D is...

[musgrove]

Then how can you derive that opinion? I understand all too well what a PhD is because of several credible reasons. It's a doctorate of Philosophy. The reason for that degree being in Philosphy, rather than Marketing, or whatever the the chosen path of study is, is because what you're learning to do is create a theory, evaluate it in a philosophical manner using theorems, and defend it, whether it pans out or not. It's to teach the candidate how to do research and present it in research journals, which is what makes a Ph.D. more valuable than, say, an instructor or an adjunct professor, who doesn't need a Ph.D but can also teach graduate-level courses, as I have. Instructors in a University know as much as or more about the subject they teach as a Ph.D. And they often do know more. In some instances, much more. But they don't have the other two responsibilities tenure-track professors have which is research and service, which set tenure-track professors apart in salary and prestige. It's not a fair system, but schools don't represent the real world in any shape or form, so that's just how it is.