The rise of ‘ARPA-everything’ and what it means for science (2021)
1–10 of 22 posts
Re: The rise of ‘ARPA-everything’ and what it means for science (2021)
#2As someone with ARPA-related experience, I can say there are some trade-offs (possibly even flaws) in the execution of "the recipe" as practiced in the modern day. However, it's probably also the part of government that most closely resembles the start-up world. In fact, when I was there, we often intentionally modeled certain things after ideas borrowed from that side of the private sector. If you believe in maxims like "being okay with failure", "failing fast", and "going for moonshots", then you might think it's worth the cost (and all the untrimmed fat).
That said, I'd probably like to see high-level visibility on some accounting of cost versus success in, say, the past 15 years. From what I've seen, there haven't really been the kind of big-impact wins you usually see touted from further back in history. Instead it's mostly been PR, shrug-worthy output, and outright graft (e.g., a golden parachute for a certain Solyndra exec).
Re: The rise of ‘ARPA-everything’ and what it means for science (2021)
#3I’ve absolutely loved working with ARPA-E in my job and I cannot imagine why we would create ARPA-C. Anyone in ARPA-E will tell you they are fundamentally working on climate. They also do some energy security stuff but I they would all be very dissatisfied if it got paired down to that.
ARPA-H sounds like a great idea, I hope it’s well executed!
Re: The rise of ‘ARPA-everything’ and what it means for science (2021)
#4As someone with ARPA-related experience, I can say there are some trade-offs (possibly even flaws) in the execution of "the recipe" as practiced in the modern day. However, it's probably also the part of government that most closely resembles the start-up world. In fact, when I was there, we often intentionally modeled certain things after ideas borrowed from that side of the private sector. If you believe in maxims…
Agreed. Worked on an ARPA-E funded project and it was reported as a success even though the primary deliverable was never completed and was probably not viable anyway. Everyone involved meant well, but I sensed the PIs viewed it more as a vehicle for their ICs' careers than as a mission-driven enterprise.
This is a wicked incentive problem and I don't know how to solve it.
Re: The rise of ‘ARPA-everything’ and what it means for science (2021)
#5As someone with ARPA-related experience, I can say there are some trade-offs (possibly even flaws) in the execution of "the recipe" as practiced in the modern day. However, it's probably also the part of government that most closely resembles the start-up world. In fact, when I was there, we often intentionally modeled certain things after ideas borrowed from that side of the private sector. If you believe in maxims…
Agreed. Worked on an ARPA-E funded project and it was reported as a success even though the primary deliverable was never completed and was probably not viable anyway. Everyone involved meant well, but I sensed the PIs viewed it more as a vehicle for their ICs' careers than as a mission-driven enterprise. This is a wicked incentive problem and I don't know how to solve it.
For those not familiar with the jargon, can you expand what PI and IC means? Private Investors and Individual Contributors?
Re: The rise of ‘ARPA-everything’ and what it means for science (2021)
#6Earlier quoted context omitted.
Agreed. Worked on an ARPA-E funded project and it was reported as a success even though the primary deliverable was never completed and was probably not viable anyway. Everyone involved meant well, but I sensed the PIs viewed it more as a vehicle for their ICs' careers than as a mission-driven enterprise. This is a wicked incentive problem and I don't know how to solve it.
For those not familiar with the jargon, can you expand what PI and IC means? Private Investors and Individual Contributors?
sorry, Principal Investigator and Individual Contributor
Re: The rise of ‘ARPA-everything’ and what it means for science (2021)
#7It's strange that the article ignores the Mansfield Amendment and the transformation of ARPA to DARPA.
Re: The rise of ‘ARPA-everything’ and what it means for science (2021)
#8I'm a bit surprised there hasn't been much of a pitch for an ARPA-AI, maybe because AI touches on a bit of everything or too many other stakeholders in gov are doing AI stuff? But AI seems like an area where an organization just focused on that would be rather interesting and it would likely have broad ramifications for the other ARPA's being considered (e.g. advancements in medical with protein folding and drug discovery, advancements in energy with automated grid management and figuring out optimal mixes for minerals for batteries)
Re: The rise of ‘ARPA-everything’ and what it means for science (2021)
#9I'm a bit surprised there hasn't been much of a pitch for an ARPA-AI, maybe because AI touches on a bit of everything or too many other stakeholders in gov are doing AI stuff? But AI seems like an area where an organization just focused on that would be rather interesting and it would likely have broad ramifications for the other ARPA's being considered (e.g. advancements in medical with protein folding and drug disc…
i think that's what they have DARPA for.
Actually Norbert Wiener thought a lot about intelligent machines, he called that Cybernetics - but there was a problem, he didn't want to accept any funding from the military:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Norbert_Wiener
"After the war, Wiener became increasingly concerned with what he believed was political interference with scientific research, and the militarization of science. His article "A Scientist Rebels" from the January 1947 issue of The Atlantic Monthly[19] urged scientists to consider the ethical implications of their work. After the war, he refused to accept any government funding or to work on military projects. The way Wiener's beliefs concerning nuclear weapons and the Cold War contrasted with those of von Neumann is the major theme of the book John Von Neumann and Norbert Wiener.[20]"
John McCarthy invented the term Artificial Intelligence, in order to avoid any association with Cybernetics - I think he didn't want any association with Norbert Wiener. I suspect that this might have something to do with funding...
see http://jmc.stanford.edu/artificial-intelligence/reviews/bloo...
Re: The rise of ‘ARPA-everything’ and what it means for science (2021)
#10I'm a bit surprised there hasn't been much of a pitch for an ARPA-AI, maybe because AI touches on a bit of everything or too many other stakeholders in gov are doing AI stuff? But AI seems like an area where an organization just focused on that would be rather interesting and it would likely have broad ramifications for the other ARPA's being considered (e.g. advancements in medical with protein folding and drug disc…
i think that's what they have DARPA for. Actually Norbert Wiener thought a lot about intelligent machines, he called that Cybernetics - but there was a problem, he didn't want to accept any funding from the military: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Norbert_Wiener "After the war, Wiener became increasingly concerned with what he believed was political interference with scientific research, and the militarization of scie…
Sure but DARPA does all sorts of work, not just AI related stuff