[xpe]

Is this substantive engagement with the earlier comment? I’m not seeing it. You probably know the examples are different (long term R&D on a telecom protocol followed by government implementation and standards and industry adoption … versus fairly early-days access to a GenAI model tuned for defense contexts).

[ajross]

Generally a notable counter-example to a broad-brush point stands as "substantive engagement", yeah. Stating that the Pentagon buys software badly in the general case is a less specific and less engaged point than "ARPANET and IPv4 were DoD projects that ate the world".

If you want to argue that the examples are different, that's an extra point you need to bring to the table. You're not allowed to assume everyone just agrees with you.

[xpe]

Don’t you think the standard you mention is too low? I do.

The comment didn’t advance the conversation. It was a relatively shallow level of engagement; something I’d expect to see in a silly Reddit back and forth. We deserve better here.

And to your point: my comment explained my point: “long term R&D on a telecom protocol followed by government implementation and standards and industry adoption versus…”.

Of course I don’t assume everyone agrees with me. (You don’t really think I do, do you?) But I want people to put a certain level effort to reach a quality bar. My problem perhaps is that people don’t want to put in sufficient effort. Or perhaps as a community we are not setting the bar high enough. This level of thinking is attainable here; we just need to set the bar and fight for it.

[ajross]

Dunno. I think you're being pedantic about a point that is clearly incorrect. In fact the history of Pentagon-funded R&D is absolutely filled with wild success stories and with embarrassing disasters, as you'd clearly expect from any organization that size.

I don't think you're prior is correct at all here, and trying to dismiss a bleedingly obvious counterexample (I mean, come on!) as "shallow" just because it refutes your deeply held beliefs is exactly they opposite of "substantive engagement".

To wit: you're just wrong. Take the L.

[xpe]

> Dunno. I think you're being pedantic about a point that is clearly incorrect.

If I was incorrect about a positive (factual) claim, that's fine, I'm happy to learn. However, if we disagree on normative claims (values), that is not about "correctness".

For context, I can't readily think of a time when someone here on HN used the word "pedantic" in a kind way. It seems like the most-socially acceptable form of insult here. It isn't something you say out of respect. Your tone seems angry and combative rather than trying to understand. From my point of view, this is sad and counterproductive. To hoist up a level, this is part of my main point above -- I want there to be a kind of discussion here that is productive: both substantively and in terms of mutual respect.

> the history of Pentagon-funded R&D is absolutely filled with wild success stories and with embarrassing disasters...

I don't disagree. I'm not sure why you think I would. Perhaps you were misunderstanding?

Just to give some context -- which you probably know -- but it will help give us some shared grounding ... DARPA funded TCP/IP by way of the ARPANET, and DARPA gets its funding from the Pentagon. Still, the Pentagon's R&D funding (around $140B) is hugely different in character and scope from DARPA's funding ($4B). Compare (i) a broad Pentagon contract to get access to OpenAI's services with (ii) DARPA's funding for ARPANET. I don't see this as an interesting or relevant comparison: the Pentagon isn't driving fundamental research in (i). There are much better comparison points, such as the Pentagon's contracts with AWS or Azure.

[xpe]

> To wit: you're just wrong. Take the L.

There is no need to be a jerk about it. I explained my standard and thinking; we don't have to agree, to restate your earlier point. Your comment is choosing a "win versus lose" mentality.