Granted, but it was symbolic AI that cracked checkers. Go and Chess were just too combinatorically complex for existing computers. There could be better strategies for Go and Chess than those based on ML, but we know that there is no better strategy for checkers. This is a difference only of interest to an academic or someone trying to get past the ML barrier we will be facing in five to ten years.
I admire your touching faith in cycles, but cycles are driven by things. Science and R&D are usually driven by existential threats to the elite. Right now, our elite aren’t being threatened enough, so we’ll have to wait for the necessary bad actors to turn the wheel.
I don’t consider drones, autonomous cars, smart grids, or blockchain to be infant technologies. They are all ready for development and roll out. The government was funding them in the 1970s and probably before. It’s the stuff that will enable the next generation of drones, autonomous cars, smart grids, or blockchain that we need to be spending on right now.
It’s definitely not my money. The money I use says “The United States of America” on it. It’s the government’s money. Most people forget that money, like private property, is a government service. Theoretical research is also a government service, so the government should be spending lots of money on it.
Malaria research is a terrible example to choose to advocate private investments in the research sector.
If it hadn’t been for tax payers money, malaria researchers would have had even less a chance on the so-called free market of ideas than they had.
Also, without public money both in research and in a deal with Novartis, spend by the WHO, Coartem would not be available to millions of people.
It’s embarrassing to see that a private investor like the Gates Foundation is apparently making the difference. And this investment is a problem in its own right.
While I certainly advocate for greater levels of spending on basic research, I’m pretty much forced to admit that the public doesn’t particularly agree with my priorities.
There will always be suffering that needs to be addressed, no matter how much money government has, if for no other reason, our definition of deprivation (and out ethical requirements to do something about it) changes with our capabilities to relieve it.
So the question I must address is “how much extra suffering is that basic research worth”. (And yes, I can dodge the question but pointing how we can save money on programs I don’t like or by taxing people more. But again, should that money be going into basic research or into bettering people’s lives right this instant?)
Hmm, yes, it actually is what you said, in slightly different words. Of course, hewing to the exact letter of the words you wrote and pretending they only have the meaning that supports your statement is libertarian par for the course, naturally.
1 Like
Nationalizing all business and industry = Pushing for increased public funds to pursue useful innovations. In slightly different words.
Yes, that would be a good thing, I’m glad you agree.
Part of the problem is that investors want their ROI and they wanted it yesterday.This makes it hard to argue that long term investments be it basic scientific research or intensive engineering projects are worthwhile if said investors have the legal power of the SEC on their side. It’s hard to tell shareholders to stuff it in this environment. They got command of the whole economy. This would be fine if shareholders were properly taxed on the excesses of their windfalls to cycle back into the economy to spur those long term projects but the fact they refuse to bare the cost that keeps their coffers full is the death knell of capitalism. Basically, the capitalists are dumb and don’t know how to keep capitalism going.
1 Like
This topic was automatically closed after 5 days. New replies are no longer allowed.
