Society already funds a lot of scientific research. Some of that funding currently goes to private pockets like Wolfram Research, who license out their proprietary tech under expensive and highly limiting licenses (they're licensed per CPU core, Oracle style), so that scientists can do scientific computing.
As a former Mathematica user, a good part of the core functionality is great and ahead of open source, the rest and especially a lot of me-too functionality added over the years is mediocre at best and beaten by open source, while the ecosystem around it is basically nonexistent thanks to the closed nature, so anything not blessed by Wolfram Research is painful. In open source, say Python, people constantly try to outdo each other in performance, DX, etc.; and whatever you need there's likely one or more libraries for it, which you can inspect to decide for yourself or even extend yourself. With Wolfram, you get what you get in the form of binary blobs.
I would love to see institutions pooling resources to advance open source scientific computing, so that it finally crosses the threshold of open and better (from the current open and sometimes better).
Isn't plugging Wolfram algorithms into LLMs basically their current solution for the DX problem?
As far as society funding research, while I'm quite sympathetic to this view, Wolfram also puts in a significant amount of private dollars into the operationalization of their systems. My guess is there's a whole range of algorithms that aren't prominent enough to publish a paper on nor economically lucrative enough to build a company on that Wolfram products sell.
That said I do think LLM coding agents offer a great way forward to implement more papers on a FOSS manner.
Academic institutions have internal IP scouting monitoring every lab for monetizable research.
On top of that, and often competing with the former, professors are constantly exploring (heavily subsidized with public grants and staffed with free grad students) spin-offs to funnel any commercial potential of their research into their own or their buddie's pockets. It's just like in politics with revolving doors and plushy 'speaking engagements' or 'board seats' galore.
It’s hard to distribute equipment, food and shelter at zero marginal cost. It’s easy to distribute software at zero marginal cost. So let’s start there.
No one is stopping you. Build it, then distribute it. You will find that as long as people need to pay for their living, there is no post-scarcity world in any domain, especially not the digital one.
What does this have to do with anything? We as a culture decided that science is worthwhile, and that it's worth funding it with public money, which I personally strongly support. With that in mind, I want us to continue contributing to making scientific research and the benefits that it provides to be disseminated freely, while also paying good scientists with actual dollars that they could spend in restaurants.
Individuals and small groups make decisions in their own interest. The same is not true of society. That’s the issue that the GP is asking you to respond to
I suppose I might not be understanding your and the GP's intent correctly, but I thought that the question was based on the following sentences:
> I think it would be good service to use AI tools to bring open source alternatives like sympy and sage and macaulay to par.
> It would be really nice to have better software written by strong software engineers who also understands the maths for mathematicians.
And my response is that I think that this sort of work, which is in the public scientific interest should be funded by tax money, and the results distributed under libre licenses.
Nobody is saying "don't pay the developers". Some of us advocate for "pay the developers to develop free and open source software". Rent-seeking is not good for society.
>We as a culture decided that science is worthwhile, and that it's worth funding it with public money, which I personally strongly support.
what country are you in, and what percentage of the public purse goes to funding science? In the U.S about 11%, and with that number I often read articles, linked to from this site, about U.S Scientists quitting and going into private sector work or other non-scientific fields to get adequate compensation.
>while also paying good scientists with actual dollars that they could spend in restaurants.
see, my admittedly vague understanding of how things are structured tells me this part isn't what is happening.
I think the CBPP maybe underplays research under different organizations, for example is DARPA under DOD or is it under science and education? If under DOD then can probably increase the percent by another .5 from DARPA, and so forth with other organizations.
However, I am certainly fine with taking your stats since that just underlines they point I made and evidently got downvoted for, that the U.S does not pay for scientific research at a level where one can blithely assert that it is something considered important by the government.
As a former Mathematica user, a good part of the core functionality is great and ahead of open source, the rest and especially a lot of me-too functionality added over the years is mediocre at best and beaten by open source, while the ecosystem around it is basically nonexistent thanks to the closed nature, so anything not blessed by Wolfram Research is painful. In open source, say Python, people constantly try to outdo each other in performance, DX, etc.; and whatever you need there's likely one or more libraries for it, which you can inspect to decide for yourself or even extend yourself. With Wolfram, you get what you get in the form of binary blobs.
I would love to see institutions pooling resources to advance open source scientific computing, so that it finally crosses the threshold of open and better (from the current open and sometimes better).