[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.