[hdivider]

I fail to understand the sentiment here.

This is the intention of tech transfer. To have private-sector entities commercialize the R&D.

What is the alternative? National labs and universities can't commercialize in the same way, including due to legal restrictions at the state and sometimes federal level.

As long as the process and tech transfer agreements are fair and transparent -- and not concentrated in say OpenAI or with underhanded kickbacks to government -- commercialization will benefit productive applications of AI. All the software we're using right now to communicate sits on top of previous, successful, federally-funded tech transfer efforts which were then commercialized. This is how the system works, how we got to this level.

[delusional]

> As long as the process and tech transfer agreements are fair and transparent

I think that's the crux of the guy you're responding to's point. He does not believe it will be done fairly and transparently, because these AI corporations will have broad control over the technology.

[hdivider]

If so, yes indeed, fair point by him/her. It's up to ordinary folks like us to push against unfair tech transfer because yes, federal labs and research institutions would otherwise provide the incumbents an extreme advantage.

Having been in this world though, I didn't see a reluctance in federal labs to work with capable entrepreneurs with companies at any level of scale. From startup to OpenAI to defense primes, they're open to all. So part of the challenge here is simply engaging capable entrepreneurs to go license tech from federal labs, and go create competitors for the greedy VC-funded or defense prime incumbents.

[cogman10]

> I didn't see a reluctance in federal labs to work with capable entrepreneurs

My reluctance is when we talk about fraud, waste, and corruptions in government, this is where it happens.

The DoD's budget isn't $1T because they are spending $900B on the troops. It's $1T because $900B of that ends up in the hands of the likes of Lockhead martin and Raytheon to build equipment we don't need.

I frankly do not trust "entrepreneurs" to not be greedy pigs willing to 100x the cost of anything and everything. There are nearly no checks in place to stop that from happening.

[lovich]

Not that it fully takes away from your argument but a lot of that high price tag is also due to requiring much better controls on material to prevent supply chain attacks ala getting beepers with explosives in the hands of all your leadership

[GolfPopper]

Yet that's the exact opposite of what's been done with something like the F-35[1], with widely distributed production, typically among countries seen as US allies (at least prior to this year), but with key components still made in China.[2] And the problem is even worse in the larger defense industry.[3] Americans pay an immense premium for a military-industrial complex where the PR is largely divorced from reality; for example the USS Gerald R. Ford, commissioned in 2017 still isn't combat ready.[4]

1.https://dsm.forecastinternational.com/2025/04/18/tariffs-tru... 2. https://www.xatakaon.com/materials/u-s-f-35-fighter-jets-and... 3. https://www.forbes.com/sites/davidjeans/2025/04/16/silicon-v... 4. https://www.19fortyfive.com/2025/03/the-navys-ford-class-120...

[cogman10]

All the more reason to bring such initiatives inhouse and not outsource them.

You can hope that a defense company is doing the right things in terms of supply chain attacks, but that's a pretty lucrative corner to cut. They'd not even need to cut it all the time to reap benefits.

The only other alternative is frequent audits of the defense company which is expensive and wouldn't necessarily solve the problem.

[worldsayshi]

> What is the alternative?

Reasonably there should be a two way exchange? It might be okay for companies to piggyback on research funds if that also means that more research insight enters public knowledge.

[rapind]

I’d be happy if they just paid their fair share of tax and stopped acting like they were self-made when they really just piggybacked on public funds and research.

There’s zero acknowledgment or appreciation of public infra and research.

[dekhn]

What do you mean universities can't commercialize in the same way (I may have misunderstood what you meant)? Due to Bayh-Dole, Universities can patent and license the tech they develop under contract for the government- often helping professors start up companies with funding, while simultaneously charging those companies to license the tech. This is also true for National labs run by universities (Berkeley and a few others). the other labs run under contract by external for-profit companies.

[hbartab]

If this were just about tech transfer, in which private firms commercialize public research, I agree. But that's not what Jason Pruet is saying. In the Q&A he notes:

> “Why don’t we just let private industry build these giant engines for progress and science, and we’ll all reap the benefits?” The problem is that if we’re not careful, it could lead us to a very different country than the one we’ve been in.

This isn't about commercialization, it's about control. When access to frontier models and SOTA compute is gated by private interests, academics (and the public) risk getting locked out. Not because of merit, but because their work doesn't align with corporate priorities.

[BurningFrog]

R&D results should be buried under a crystal obelisk at the bottom of the ocean, to warn to future generations.