FLF is launching an 'incubator fellowship' on AI for human reasoning to help talented researchers and builders start working on AI tools for coordination and epistemics. Participants will scope out and work on pilot projects in this area, with discussion and guidance from experts working in related fields. FLF will provide fellows with a $25k–$50k stipend, the opportunity to work in a shared office in the SF Bay Area, and other support.
That was exactly my point. Patents are definitionally impossible to steal (unless, I guess, you somehow are able to get access to the patent database and change the patent holder?)
That's not a very interesting patent. It's basically some optical stuff to do LIDAR scanning with non-square pixels, presumably because you want more resolution in one axis than the other. That's nice, but not a big improvement over existing technology.
There are a lot of interesting startups right now in the mobile health space, but it is a significantly more difficult space to operate in. It takes years to get FDA approval for new medical devices, the healthcare industry is beholden to several large industry players, and the culture of medicine is resistant to rapid innovation. I understand and echo your frustration that silicon valley often only pays lip service to 'dangerously ambitious ideas', but there are also real reasons why people don't operate in these difficult business environments.
As an example, Glooko makes a mobile version of a glucose logbook that reads data straight from a sampling device - useful, but not earthshaking. But to go from that data to automatic reminders and advice about managing glucose levels - what raganwald wishes existed - would require a much more stringent level of approval from the FDA.
I used to work next to the guys from mySugr. They went through the process of having their app certified as a medical device by the European Commission, (the CE or Conformité Européenne mark). Not easy, but doable. I'm not sure whether it gives explicit recommendations, but it let's you identify patterns based on what you're eating and the activities you're doing.
Regulations are a bastard, but there for good reasons. Imagine getting a med which wasn't tested and which is made in someones bathtub…
Exaggerated but you get what I mean?
Have to say, I didn't really see any actual point being made by this author. Maybe its just a misleading headline, but as far as I could tell his argument boiled down to 1.) We can't let the Estonians beat us in the election technology race 2.) We live in the future, its time our election system was futuristic. The rest is just quotes from security experts about why he's wrong.
I would love to know by what metric 1950s & 60s elites were 'better'. Brook's seems to be ignoring the fact that elites in these times were more effective because they could ignore other interest groups. It's easy to get a highway built when you can override the largely poor or minority groups who live in these areas (i.e. Robert Moses). Also the widespread lack of transparency meant that the crimes of elites were far less apparent, and so popular conception is that they were a far more 'honorable' bunch. I don't deny that there is a lot wrong with the ruling class today, but that problem emerges from our institutions, and the concentration of power and lack of checks/balances, not because of some mythic, WASPy noblesse oblige that no longer exists.
I would love to know by what metric 1950s & 60s elites were 'better'. Brook's seems to be ignoring the fact that elites in these times were more effective because they could ignore other interest groups.
He's not basing it on any metric.
His sentiment can be chalked up completely to the nostalgia that all people feel for the era of their childhood. Everyone always thinks that "things were better" during the time when they were growing up - because they were too young to understand what things were like for adults in that time. The time periods of our youth always seem better than today.
Fair point on the disastrous social engineering and urban redevelopment schemes of the 20th century. But, what about sending men to the moon or designing and building the sr-71 in a few years? Or for that matter conquering Japan and Germany in the space of a few years.
I argue these are all things our society today would simply not be able to do if placed in the same circumstances. We are less effective.
I argue these are all things our society today would simply not be able to do if placed in the same circumstances. We are less effective.
What is this based on? Our society today is still capable of great accomplishments - look at what Google has built in 10 years, the amount of knowledge organized there.
I would argue that we seem to be able to accomplish less because as a society our ambitions are smaller. Large government programs get nowhere today because everyone fears socialism.
That, and there really are constraints now that did not exist then. Building a dam back then did not require environmental impact statements and the like.
You raise the interesting point of 'Great Projects'. I'm sympathetic with the desire for a new space program, but I think it has less to do with a lack of vision and more to do with competing visions. NASA has a harder time raising money in the government because they have to compete against a multitude of other causes and agencies, who rightly point out that money put towards a trip to mars is money thats not going to social welfare programs, infrastructure, or other, more tangible goods. We went to the moon because there was an overwhelming desire to 'beat' the soviets; if a similar desire competitor existed today, I imagine a similar effort.
As for winning WWII, its the same basic point that at that time there was an obvious single good to be pursued, winning the war, whereas now there are many different goods. This isn't the fault of our elites or our efficiency, it just points to the fact that we live in a pluralistic society. It would be better to embrace that, and devolve more power to civil society, than to continue to pine for elites who can overcome opposition.
