Why Bell Labs Worked.
Importance: 4 | # | science, research, bell-labs
The reason why we don't have Bell Labs is because we're unwilling to do what it takes to create Bell Labs — giving smart people radical freedom and autonomy.
The freedom to waste time. The freedom to waste resources. And the autonomy to decide how.
I've always pursued my interests without much regard for final value or value to the world. I've spent lots of time on totally useless things.
— Claude Shannon
Reportedly, Kelly and others would hand people problems and then check in a few years later.3 Most founders and executives I know balk at this idea. After all, "what's stopping someone from just slacking off?" Kelly would contend that's the wrong question to ask. The right question is, "Why would you expect information theory from someone who needs a babysitter?"
It has always intrigued me - how much Bell Labs contributed to the advancement of humanity. I would like to delve deeper and understand exactly how it was run and what made it so conducive to breakthroughs.
It's difficult to imagine how I would ever have enough peace and quiet in the present sort of climate to do what I did in 1964... Today I wouldn't get an academic job. It's as simple as that. I don't think I would be regarded as productive enough.
— Peter Higgs
We live in a metrics obsessed culture that is obsessed with narrowly defined productivity. There's too much focus on accountability and too little focus on creativity.
Have we collectively lost our eyes on ball — maybe just a bit? Are we, as a society, simply unwilling to make large enough bets? Isn't VC, a dominant force today, supposed to be making huge bets? Are they just not okay with the 1000 to 1 bets, but good with 100 to 1 bets? Is it that the EV doesn't work out for the 1000x bets? Or is it to do with the Kelly criterion (John Kelly, Bell Labs researcher)? Why do most YC companies today seem like low-hanging fruit?