[realtalk_sp]

Using a PhD as a gateway into applied ML is so horrifically misguided I hardly know where to even begin debunking it.

PhDs are one especially crappy way to prove you have the intellectual chops to engage with ML. There are far more direct, practical, and expedient alternative paths to get there.

Importantly, the number of people who were perfectly capable of doing a PhD but chose not to (because, frankly, it's a very bad deal) vastly dwarfs the number of people who stuck around in academia and obtained one. Additionally, my observation at several major tech companies is that PhDs have a bent of mind that is roughly orthogonal to the pursuit of real business value.

[orange3xchicken]

Yikes! This doesn't really come across as a nice comment (bent minds???). There are good concrete reasons to pursue a PhD (ignoring soft reasons like pure interest): wanting a research career is one - it's pretty difficult to get hired as a scientist without a PhD. Also, historical evidence doesn't really support your claim that R&D is orthogonal to business value. Sure, pure science is often independent from $$$ (despite plenty of examples of producing real value), but applied R&D is oftentimes parallel to value generation. if R&D in general is useless, why do top tech companies spend big money on research groups?

Getting a PhD is a fine deal if you have good reasons.

[realtalk_sp]

I explicitly caveated my statement with "Using a PhD as a gateway into applied ML" for a reason. The vast majority of people going into applied ML are not pioneering new methods. They're using ML as a tool to support business objectives. This is the group I'm talking about.

The phrase "bent of mind" roughly implies "the way someone thinks". Its usage is declining I suppose but there's nothing connotatively nefarious there.

[orange3xchicken]

Yeah - I looked it up. Thanks!

[nsriv]

Bent of mind is a phrase that means proclivity or predisposition, and PhDs are famously arduous.