Benjamin Reinhardt

The funding is really not that great, we are on the funding level described as "fusion never" (https://benjaminreinhardt.com/fusion-never/)

yep! https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23670246 https://benjaminreinhardt.com/wddw took me almost a month to get through it but well worth the read.

Likely more than you ever wanted to know on the topic: https://benjaminreinhardt.com/wddw A couple things I'd pull out: Program managers sit limited terms to prevent empire building Program managers have a great deal of autonomy once funding is initially allocated DARPA has a high appetite for risk. They're ok with 90% of projects failing to hit their goal.

> specifically in the federal government...unfortunately that is not likely to be the source of the next great tech innovator The federal government helps build and fund innovative research projects and private businesses. Notable examples include the Manhattan project, GPS, SpaceX, and the Internet. I’d bet the US government will continue to be a source, and assist other sources, of innovation. Edit: The following happens to be on the front page at the time of this edit - “Why does DARPA work?” https://benjaminreinhardt.com/wddw

If people are genuinely curious, this is the best explanation I've seen of why DARPA worked: https://benjaminreinhardt.com/wddw > The Advanced Research Projects Agency model is of an organization set up to maximize the agency and effectiveness of world-class program managers (PMs) who coordinate external research to midwife technology that wouldn’t otherwise happen (Programs.) > The model has changed over time, but has still produced outlier results over time so it is worth paying attention to modern DARPA with more focus on informal process than formal process. PMs need specific characteristics to succeed: thinking for themselves, curiosity, low ego, vision, and ability to act under uncertainty. PMs also need to be trustworthy because the model depends on their ability to deploy funds quickly and redeploy them as needed. These PMs have temporary tenures, which enables idea turnover, aligns incentives, and enables DARPA to hire people it wouldn’t otherwise be able to. It’s worth deeply thinking about PM motivations because they are so core to the model. > Organizationally, DARPA is tiny, flat, and opaque. It is set up to combine bottom-up and top down approaches through different-scale feedback loops. It is more ideas limited than money limited. DARPA’s project design and execution framework boils down to first showing that a precise technological vision is not impossible, then showing that it is possible, and finally making it possible. On top of many tacit tools, PMs…

To obligatory long-reads for anyone interested in DARPA model - Why does DARPA work? - https://benjaminreinhardt.com/wddw - A private ARPA user manual - https://benjaminreinhardt.com/parpa

Author here. I actually wrote a discussion of the Endless Frontier Act: https://benjaminreinhardt.com/the-endless-frontier-act/ I agree that the ARPA model is not suitable for all (or even the majority of research) and the act doesn't inspire confidence that shifting the NSF towards a DARPA-like model would do well.

> I didn't say I trust them. Ok, let me refresh your memory: "I don't know, that's what the experts say". Does that not sound like rhyming with "I trust them" to you? > No one else can be trusted to have a good take on this except the experts. Fusion is complex topic. Yes, fusion is a complex topic. But so is building fission nuclear power plants. If the experts in fission power plants keep telling you they can build these plants for X, and they consistently build them for 5X, do you give them a pass? Building rockets is complex too. The SLS system (also known as Senate Launch System) is permanently delayed and over budget. When the experts say they need more money, do you give them a pass, just because their domain of expertise is complex? Why are you treating fusion any differently? Take the famous "fusion never" graph [1]. According to that graph, if we had invested an average of about $5 BN over about 15 years, then it would have been the "maximum effective effort". What exactly would we have done in 1976-90 with $50 BN (in 2012 dollars) that would have made a difference? We are now half a century later. An iPhone has infinitely more computational power than the top supercomputer of the time (which was Cray-1, with 160 MFlops). Ok, not infinitely more, but at 2 TFlops and iPhone 15 Pro has more than 10000 time more compute, which means it most likely has more than the entire available compute in the world in 1976. The $50 BN in 1976 could not have bought you a time…

Not about Bell Labs - https://benjaminreinhardt.com/parpa