TE
科技回声
首页24小时热榜最新最佳问答展示工作
GitHubTwitter
首页

科技回声

基于 Next.js 构建的科技新闻平台,提供全球科技新闻和讨论内容。

GitHubTwitter

首页

首页最新最佳问答展示工作

资源链接

HackerNews API原版 HackerNewsNext.js

© 2025 科技回声. 版权所有。

Why Bell Labs Worked

319 点作者 areoform1 天前

29 条评论

pmb1 天前
It was forcibly funded as part of a consent decree from the US government that allowed AT&amp;T to continue as a monopoly as long as they invested a percent of their yearly revenue (or profit? I forget) in research. AT&amp;T, having no interest in changing their incredibly profitable phone network, then proceeded to do fundamental research, as required as a condition of their monopoly.<p>Decades later, AT&amp;T was broken up into the baby bells and the consent decree was removed at that time. Bell Labs&#x27; fate was then sealed - it no longer had a required legal minimum funding level, and the baby bells were MBA-run monstrosities that were only interested in &quot;research&quot; that paid dividends in the next 6 months in a predictable fashion.<p>The funding model is an integral part of the story.
评论 #43960798 未加载
评论 #43962603 未加载
评论 #43962065 未加载
评论 #43970084 未加载
评论 #43964465 未加载
YouWhy1 天前
Bell Labs grew to be a dominant player in an age that was characterized by an oversupply of a manageable number highly capable scientists who did not all have a chance for getting anything resembling funding.<p>Today we have a huge oversupply of scientists, however there&#x27;s too many of them to allow judging for potential, and many are not actually capable of dramatic impact.<p>More generally, a standard critique for &quot;reproducing a golden age&quot; narratives are that the golden age existed within a vastly different ecosystem and indeed - stopped working due to systemic reasons, many of which still apply.<p>In particular, just blaming &#x27;MBA Management&#x27; does little to explain why MBAs appeared in the first place, why they were a preferable alternative to other types of large scale management, and indeed how to avoid relapsing to it over a few years and personnel shifts.<p>Overall I am afraid this post, while evocative , did not convince me what makes 1517 specifically so different.
评论 #43960876 未加载
评论 #43967937 未加载
评论 #43960350 未加载
评论 #43961392 未加载
评论 #43966374 未加载
评论 #43960432 未加载
评论 #43961543 未加载
评论 #43960131 未加载
评论 #43961126 未加载
评论 #43961393 未加载
评论 #43961398 未加载
scrlk1 天前
As an interesting counterpoint to the idea of &quot;just hire smart people and give them a lab&quot;, Ralph Gomory, head of IBM Research (a peer of Bell Labs in its day) from 1970-86 said:<p>&gt; There was a mistaken view that if you just put a lab somewhere, hired a lot of good people, somehow something magical would come out of it for the company, and I didn&#x27;t believe it. That didn&#x27;t work. Just doing science in isolation will not in the end, work. [...] It wasn&#x27;t a good idea just to work on radical things. You can&#x27;t win on breakthroughs - they&#x27;re too rare. It just took me years to develop this simple thought: we&#x27;re always going to work on the in-place technology and make it better, and on the breakthrough technology. [0]<p>[0] <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;youtu.be&#x2F;VQ0PBve6Alk?t=1480" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;youtu.be&#x2F;VQ0PBve6Alk?t=1480</a>
评论 #43958886 未加载
评论 #43960825 未加载
评论 #43966402 未加载
评论 #43959255 未加载
评论 #43959275 未加载
评论 #43958357 未加载
评论 #43961971 未加载
评论 #43960328 未加载
评论 #43963800 未加载
majormajor1 天前
You have to be willing to <i>not</i> have things guaranteed to &quot;work.&quot; Don&#x27;t just look at the best case. Investigate and discuss how many versions of Bell Labs <i>didn&#x27;t</i> &quot;work.&quot;<p>If you just look at the success stories, you could say that today&#x27;s VC model works great too - see OpenAI&#x27;s work with LLMs based on tech that was comparatively stagnating inside of Google&#x27;s labs. Especially if nobody remembers Theranos in 50 years. Or you could say that big government-led projects are &quot;obviously&quot; the way to go (moon landing, internet).<p>On paper, after all, both the &quot;labs&quot; and the VC game are about trying to fund lots of ideas so that the hits pay for the (far greater) number of failures. But they <i>both</i>, after producing some hits, have run into copycat management optimization culture that brings rapid counter-productive risk-aversion. (The university has also done this with publish-or-perish.)<p>Victims of their own success.<p>So either: find a new frontier funding source that hasn&#x27;t seen that cycle yet (it would be ironic if some crypto tycoon started funding a bunch of pure research and that whole bubble led to fundamental breakthroughs after all, hah) <i>or</i> figure out how to break the human desire for control and guaranteed returns.
评论 #43960838 未加载
评论 #43962746 未加载
LeoPanthera1 天前
If you haven&#x27;t already, check out the &quot;AT&amp;T Archives&quot; on the AT&amp;T Tech Channel on YouTube. It&#x27;s an absolutely remarkable collection of American technology history.<p><a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.youtube.com&#x2F;playlist?list=PLDB8B8220DEE96FD9" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.youtube.com&#x2F;playlist?list=PLDB8B8220DEE96FD9</a>
kevmo3141 天前
&gt; The reason why we don&#x27;t have Bell Labs is because we&#x27;re unwilling to do what it takes to create Bell Labs — giving smart people radical freedom and autonomy.<p>My observation has been that smart people don&#x27;t want this anymore, at least not within the context of an organization. If you give your employees this freedom, many will take advantage of it and do nothing.<p>Those that are productive, the smartest who thrive in radical freedom and autonomy, instead choose to work independently. After all, why wouldn&#x27;t they? If they&#x27;re putting in the innovation the equity is worth way more than a paycheck.<p>Unfortunately, that means innovation that requires a Bell Labs isn&#x27;t as common. Fortunately, one person now can accomplish way more than a 1960&#x27;s engineer could and the frontier of innovation is much broader than it used to be.<p>I used to agree with the article&#x27;s thesis but it&#x27;s been nearly impossible to hire anyone who <i>wants</i> that freedom and autonomy (if you disagree, &lt;username&gt;@gmail.com). I think it&#x27;s because those people have outgrown the need for an organization.
评论 #43957628 未加载
评论 #43958922 未加载
评论 #43957888 未加载
评论 #43965806 未加载
评论 #43959343 未加载
评论 #43958169 未加载
评论 #43960109 未加载
ghaff1 天前
I think it&#x27;s complicated.<p>A lot of large US tech corporations do have sizable research arms.<p>Bell Labs is certainly celebrated as part of a telephone monopoly at the time though AT&amp;T actually pulled out of operating system development related to Multics and Unix was pretty much a semi-off-hours project by Ritchie and Thompson.<p>It&#x27;s true that you tend not to have such dominant firms as in the past. But companies like Microsoft still have significant research organizations. Maybe head-turning research advancements are harder than they used to be. Don&#x27;t know. But some large tech firms are still putting lots of money into longer-term advances.
评论 #43960085 未加载
评论 #43967359 未加载
评论 #43965694 未加载
noosphr1 天前
&gt;And while a VC fund is limited in what it can do in providing open-ended freedom. It can try to provide a meaningful simulacrum of that space and community, which is why I’m so excited about programs like 1517’s Flux that invests $100k in people, no questions asked and lets them explore for a few months without demanding KPIs or instantaneous progress.<p>&gt;&gt;You can move to the United States. (We will help with visas.)<p>This is no longer viable for anyone who isn&#x27;t already a US citizen. Not sure how serious about investing in individuals that VC is, but from talking to 16 to 22 year olds _none_ of them want to move to the US with ICE deporting students for saying the wrong thing online - or the perception they do. US universities and businesses are suffering from brain drain that unless reversed in the next 3 years will be a drag on the US economy for decades.
teleforce1 天前
If you want to know the research culture and the environment of Bell Labs from author&#x27;s first hand experiences, I&#x27;d highly recommended this book by Hamming [1].<p>[1] The Art of Doing Science and Engineering by Richard W. Hamming:<p><a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;press.stripe.com&#x2F;the-art-of-doing-science-and-engineering" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;press.stripe.com&#x2F;the-art-of-doing-science-and-engine...</a>
评论 #43959514 未加载
评论 #43959355 未加载
nine_k1 天前
In a way, it&#x27;s similar to the connection between &quot;boredom&quot; and creativity. When you don&#x27;t have much to do, you can do anything, including novel and awesome things. It, of course, takes the right kind of person, or a right group of persons. Give such people a way to not think about the daily bread, and allow them to build what they want to build, study what they want to study, think about what they want to think about.<p>It feels anti-efficient. It looks wasteful. It requires faith in the power of reason and the creative spirit. All these things are hard to pull off in a public corporation, unless it&#x27;s swimming in excess cash, like AT&amp;T and Google did back in the day.<p>Notably, a lot of European science in 16-19 centuries was advanced by well-off people who did not need to earn their upkeep, the useless, idle class, as some said. Truth be told, not all of them advanced sciences and arts though.<p>OTOH the rational, orderly living, when every minute is filled with some predefined meaning, pre-assigned task, allows very little room for creativity, and gives relatively little incentive to invent new things. Some see it as a noble ideal, and, understandably, a fiscal ideal, too.<p>Maybe a society needs excess sometimes, needs to burn billions on weird stuff, because it gives a chance to to something genuinely new and revolutionary to be born and grow to a viable stage. In a funny way, the same monopolies that gouge prices for the common person also collect the resources necessary for such advances, that benefit that same common person (but not necessarily that same monopoly). It&#x27;s an unsetllting thought to have.
评论 #43958230 未加载
评论 #43960332 未加载
评论 #43959489 未加载
评论 #43959498 未加载
评论 #43958351 未加载
评论 #43959309 未加载
ziofill1 天前
I left a tenured position after getting fed up with several things, among which the same grant proposal getting a “it’s too visionary” from a reviewer and “it’s trivial” from another. If it’s such a coin toss, F off will ya?
评论 #43959638 未加载
snickmy大约 22 小时前
Shameless plug: I see few people in the comment that have been working there, or have had some first hand experience of that environment. I&#x27;d love the chance to interview them. This has been one of my main area of interest for a very long period. Anyone up for it ?
musicale1 天前
&gt; I’m so excited about programs like 1517’s Flux that invests $100k in people, no questions asked and lets them explore for a few months without demanding KPIs or instantaneous progress.<p>If Bell Labs let people xplore for multiple years, a few months probably isn&#x27;t enough time.
评论 #43957839 未加载
detourdog1 天前
The birthed an industry based on electrical properties that were barely understood. They also ended up needing a very dynamic metering and accounting system. Apple can get away with a more unified workforce because their needs are known and not unique.
评论 #43958247 未加载
WalterBright1 天前
A related program was Lockheed&#x27;s Skunkworks.<p>There have been many attempts to replicate the success of the Skunkworks, but they&#x27;ve all failed because the organizers thought they could improve on it.
评论 #43959674 未加载
musicale1 天前
&gt; The freedom to waste time. The freedom to waste resources. And the autonomy to decide how.<p>As the article notes, several companies (Apple, Google, etc.) could (currently) afford to fund such a lab, but there is no way their management and shareholders would approve.<p>There&#x27;s a reason for this: research labs seem to benefit competitors as much as (or more than) the companies that fund them. This wasn&#x27;t an issue for AT&amp;T when it was a monopoly, but it is now. Personally I don&#x27;t see it as a problem (since one home run innovation could pay for the entire lab) but company managers and shareholders do.<p>On the other hand, Apple does seem to have a de facto AI lab with a good deal of resource waste, so maybe that&#x27;s good.
评论 #43957730 未加载
评论 #43958424 未加载
评论 #43959024 未加载
评论 #43959279 未加载
评论 #43959336 未加载
评论 #43958957 未加载
YossarianFrPrez大约 6 小时前
In &quot;The Utopia of Rules&quot; David Graeber (author of &quot;On Bullshit Jobs&quot;) suggests that one reason why &quot;bell labs worked&quot; is because the corporate tax rate was relatively high during the golden age of bell labs. This meant that forced with the choice of either a) sending a decent chunk of revenue to the government or b) reinvesting it in R&amp;D as a business expense, AT&amp;T chose the latter.<p>This seems to me to be under-discussed re: Bell Labs.
porridgeraisin1 天前
A close family member worked at Bell labs during the cold war era. According to them,<p>&lt;paraphrase&gt;<p>The reason is very simple. There was a big picture motivation: the war, followed by the cold war. Once the big picture motivation wasn&#x27;t there anymore, that sort of organizational structure(or lack of it) does not work the same way. What ends up happening is what a sibling comment has noted:<p>&gt; My observation has been that smart people don&#x27;t want this anymore, at least not within the context of an organization. If you give your employees this freedom, many will take advantage of it and do nothing.<p>&lt;&#x2F;paraphrase&gt;<p>You might say, but `grep` wasn&#x27;t used for war! Correct, but it came up as a side effect of working on much larger endeavours that tied into that bigger picture.<p>This has been true for most of recent human history. You might know this already, but Fourier was part of most of Napoleon&#x27;s expeditions, and his work on decomposing waveforms arose out of his work on the &quot;big picture&quot;: ballistics.
评论 #43963575 未加载
评论 #43958244 未加载
fsckboy1 天前
&gt;<i>During WW2, Bell Labs reversed engineered and improved on the British Magnetron within 2 months.</i><p>um... the UK sent the magnetron they had recently invented (1940) to the US in a spirit of wartime cooperation and because their own research and industrial base was already maxed out at the time. pretty sure they sent an owners manual and schematics too. probably even some people?<p>(magnetrons, for generating microwaves, were the essential component for radar)
评论 #43957831 未加载
评论 #43959094 未加载
userbinator1 天前
The focus on investing in what actually matters instead of being distracted by virtue signaling for ideological culture wars no doubt also had a huge influence.
WalterBright1 天前
If I was a billionaire, that would be a fun thing to do:<p>1. find 100 highly motivated scientists and engineers<p>2. pay them each $1m&#x2F;year<p>3. put them in a building<p>4. see what happens!
评论 #43957778 未加载
评论 #43957825 未加载
评论 #43957787 未加载
PicassoCTs1 天前
So MBA culture would have to go away. Which only happens in wartimes, do or die times. The MBAs get send to the front, the employees get send to the front, the madmen get a chance at being mad and after that its back to building little paper-forts and the madmen in gardensheds or asylums. What a world. If the MBAs would at least not done the cloths and manners of the mad men, parading themselves in skinsuits as &quot;innovative&quot;, that would be something.
jimnotgym大约 18 小时前
&gt;During WW2, Bell Labs reversed engineered and improved on the British Magnetron within 2 months.<p>Reverse[d] engineered with the benefit of the drawings and technical documents! It is not that complicated a device to reverse engineer anyway, the genius step was inventing it.<p>&gt; invented an acoustic homing torpedo<p>Co-invented<p>&gt; proximity fuzes,<p>They might have got it working effectively, but they didn&#x27;t invent them<p>&gt; echo-ranging SONAR,<p>A scientist on leave from Bell Labs did very important work on an invention from 20 years earlier<p>&gt; pulse code modulation<p>Not that either<p>&gt;the first anti-aircraft missile (the Nike)<p>The first <i>guided</i> anti-aircraft missile<p>&gt;and the klystron.<p>...was invented at Stanford<p>Not a great article...
alganet1 天前
What if it&#x27;s a trick?<p>You start by creating a myth: &quot;this place breeds innovation&quot;. Then, ambitious smart people wanting to innovate are drawn to it.<p>Once there, there are two ways of seeing it: &quot;it was just a myth, I&#x27;ll slack off and forget about it&quot; or &quot;the myth is worthwhile, I&#x27;ll make it real&quot;.<p>One mistake could end it all. For example, letting who doesn&#x27;t believe outnumber or outwit those who &quot;believe the myth&quot;.<p>So, small pieces: A good founding myth (half real, half exaggerated), people willing to make it more real than myth, pruning off who drags the ship down.<p>Let&#x27;s take that &quot;productivity&quot; from this myth perspective. Some people will try to game it to slack off, some people will try to make the myth of measuring it into reality (fully knowing it&#x27;s doomed from the start).<p>A sustainable power of belief is quite hard to put into a formula. You don&#x27;t create it, you find it, feed it, prune it, etc. I suspect many proto Bell Labs analogues exist today. Whenever there&#x27;s one or two people who believe and work hard, there is a chance of making it work. However, the starting seed is not enough by its own.<p>If you ask me, the free software movement has plenty of supply of it. So many companies realized this already, but can&#x27;t sequester the myth into another thing (that makes monry), even though free software already makes tons of (non monetary) value.
Apocryphon1 天前
What was greater, Bell Labs or Xerox PARC?
motohagiography1 天前
really interested in 1517 now. if i could build a new bell labs i would use a hedge fund structure instead of vc. the lab would attract talent and some of it might get invovled in the fund, but the lab would stay afloat on fund profits. the idea is to just let smart people cook for a tryout year, with great incentives. (not too unlike 1517&#x27;s program as it turns out)<p>the difference with this lab idea and a vc like YC is that vc portfolio companies need products and roadmaps to raise investment and for driving revenue. whereas an asset manager is just investing the money and using the profits to fund engineering research and spinoff product development.<p>firms like this must already exist, maybe i just never hear about their spinoffs or inventions? if not, maybe a small fund could be acquired to build a research division onto it
评论 #43960162 未加载
saboot1 天前
ctrl+f &quot;national lab&quot; = 0 results<p>Hello? We have 17(!) federally funded national labs, full of scientists doing the work this article waxes nostalgic about. Through the Laboratory Directed Research and Development (LDRD) program they afford employee scientists the ability to pursue breakthrough research. However, they are facing major reductions in funding <i>now</i> due to the recent CR and the upcoming congressional budget!
评论 #43958895 未加载
评论 #43959701 未加载
johnea1 天前
Bell Labs wasn&#x27;t the only loss. HP Labs was another victim of LBO cannibalism.
评论 #43959896 未加载
评论 #43959015 未加载
ArthurStacks1 天前
Because its easy to be 1st
评论 #43960719 未加载