[tlb]

15 years ago you could argue that venture capital wasn't funding enough advanced tech, so ideas were failing to cross the gap from pure research to commercial development. But lately there's capital available for quantum computers, fusion, synthetic bio, space exploration, asteroid mining, and lots more. The government is going to suck at funding the right things. They should leave tech transfer to private investors, and focus on funding pure science.

[SoftTalker]

> quantum computers, fusion, synthetic bio, space exploration, asteroid mining

Poster children for tech with no realistic commercial prospects. Projects in these fields have been pipe dreams for decades. Where are any commercial products in the areas of fusion reactors? Quantum computers? Asteroid mining operations?

If private investors want to fund this stuff, fine. As long as they don't come seeking bailouts later.

[mitthrowaway2]

General Fusion's approach seems pretty realistically commercializable. They're struggling to get any funding though, probably a symptom of being in Canada.

[actionfromafar]

A symptom of not bribing the Orange Purse King?

[malfist]

Not only that, but fusion itself is absolutely not what a tech venture capitalist wants to fund. The research horizon for fusion power is in the multiple decades. You're never going to find an investor that says "Yeah, I'll give you enough money to build a fusion reactor and do research for 20+ years in the hopes that you get something workable"

Fusion is literally still in the pure science stage that OP was telling governments to stick too.

[charcircuit]

The same thing could have been said about AGI 10 years ago.

[tech_ken]

> The government is going to suck at funding the right things

I'm pretty sure you have this totally backwards. People who study scientific development seem to think that the government is actually a really effective funder of research, and covers gaps that would never be addressed by private industry. See for example:

* https://www.aau.edu/newsroom/leading-research-universities-r...

* https://news.northwestern.edu/stories/2022/07/government-fun...

* https://www.americanscientist.org/article/%E2%80%9Cwhy-are-w...

[searine]

>The government is going to suck at funding the right things.

The government is actually really really good at funding the right things. The grant process has been extremely successful in directing funding efficiently towards cutting edge ideas. It does this by handing off the decision making to experts who review proposals rather than having political/profit driven kingmakers.

In contrast corporate/VC money mostly only funds the latest shiny bauble that may result in exit liquidity in a few years. The minority investments in things like fusion are still only applied work and are built on decades of unprofitable basic science.

In other words. Government funding has basically funded every science/tech breakthrough of the last 80 years.

[lowercased]

Spot on.

[lostdog]

> But lately there's capital available for quantum computers, fusion, synthetic bio, space exploration, asteroid mining, and lots more

Hmm I wonder how these were originally funded when it was less likely that they would work.

And by cutting funding now, I wonder what we're missing out on in the future.

[downrightmike]

Tax payers fund the research, they should get a cut of whatever company uses that research.

[epistasis]

Disagree heartily, the research should be for basic science that's not directly patentable. It should develop the base upon which everything else is built, that's the part of the science that can't get funded through private money. Leave the private money to the parts that can be monetized.

Of course, that's all generalities, sometimes directly monetizable stuff does come out of basic research. But the NFS should focus on basic research, because nobody else will in the US, and if we want to have it here at all, have the practitioners, have the knowledge, and then also reap the economic rewards because we have those people here, we need to fund the basic science that politicians love to mock and criticize.

[counters]

That would be a crappy trade; today, the public benefits multiple times over as commercialization of technology drives the innovation economy. Who cares about sharing a measly fraction of direct profits when we all get long-term growth of our investment and retirement portfolios at upwards of 10% annually?

[tlb]

They do as soon as that company makes a profit, or anyone sells shares in that company.

[mothballed]

In theory, sure. In practice what the taxpayers get in exchange for their taxes is they are buying a better likelihood to not have the IRS drag them to jail or all their shit carried away / seized by feds, and the 'deal' ends there (unless you count whatever power you think you get from voting, LMAO). The taxes and public collection of profits are materially in possession of congress and/or the executive. The public is basically getting dick from that (most of FICA tax goes back to the public though maybe though not as ROI just redistribution so the poors don't riot), the politicians then use their money to bomb girls' schools in Iran or prosecute Amish for having an uninspected slaughterhouse or whatever else gets their sadistic jollies going.

The sooner the public learns that the public coffers aren't theirs, and will never be theirs, the better.

[derbOac]

Agreed. Imagine an IPO where you put in money and then get no returns. Who would invest?

[pfortuny]

That is in part why corporate taxes exist.

[malfist]

Sure they exist. But there's so many write offs and loop holes it doesn't really matter.

[speed_spread]

Taxpayers get their cut through results being public for anyone to use. It's science for a better society at large, not for the benefit of the few that can wield it.