My Question to Gemini:
This story took place 40 years ago. It is a true account, and I have been granted permission to publish it anonymously.
A number of math students from one graduate school attended their first regional math conference. During a break between sessions, the group was present for a discussion about the reality of mathematical research. One postdoc offered the following observation:
"All known ideas have already been investigated to death. So when a newly fledged mathematician emerges with something fresh and publishes it—thinking to work on this garden patch for a while—immediately, a number of advanced researchers fly in with their professional axes and finish his idea off, leaving the newcomer with nothing". In this context, the 'professional axes' do not imply that the senior colleagues are smarter. Rather, it means they have been in the field longer, possess a vast knowledge of existing results, and are highly trained in the 'Publish or Perish' culture of churning out articles quickly. A few newcomers may even be better mathematicians, but they are rarely given the chance to prove it before their territory is colonized.
How close is data science research to this kind of state?
