The U.S. ascended to scientific dominance by combining government funding with private sector innovation, a model sparked by Vannevar Bush's vision in "Science, the Endless Frontier." This report led to the creation of the National Science Foundation and prioritized basic research, fostering an environment where discoveries could flourish. Crucially, the U.S. leveraged its university system, attracting global talent and creating a pipeline of skilled researchers. This potent combination of government support, private enterprise, and academic excellence laid the foundation for American leadership in scientific breakthroughs and technological advancements.
The blog post "What Killed Innovation?" argues that the current stagnation in technological advancement isn't due to a lack of brilliant minds, but rather a systemic shift towards short-term profits and risk aversion. This is manifested in several ways: large companies prioritizing incremental improvements and cost-cutting over groundbreaking research, investors favoring predictable returns over long-term, high-risk ventures, and a cultural obsession with immediate gratification hindering the patience required for true innovation. Essentially, the pursuit of maximizing shareholder value and quarterly earnings has created an environment hostile to the long, uncertain, and often unprofitable journey of disruptive innovation.
HN commenters largely agree with the author's premise that focusing on short-term gains stifles innovation. Several highlight the conflict between quarterly earnings pressures and long-term R&D, arguing that publicly traded companies are incentivized against truly innovative pursuits. Some point to specific examples of companies prioritizing incremental improvements over groundbreaking ideas due to perceived risk. Others discuss the role of management, suggesting that risk-averse leadership and a lack of understanding of emerging technologies contribute to the problem. A few commenters offer alternative perspectives, mentioning factors like regulatory hurdles and the difficulty of accurately predicting successful innovations. One commenter notes the inherent tension between needing to make money now and investing in an uncertain future. Finally, several commenters suggest that true innovation often happens outside of large corporations, in smaller, more agile environments.
The primary economic impact of AI won't be from groundbreaking research or entirely new products, but rather from widespread automation of existing processes across various industries. This automation will manifest through AI-powered tools enhancing existing software and making mundane tasks more efficient, much like how previous technological advancements like spreadsheets amplified human capabilities. While R&D remains important for progress, the real value lies in leveraging existing AI capabilities to streamline operations, optimize workflows, and reduce costs at a broad scale, leading to significant productivity gains across the economy.
HN commenters largely agree with the article's premise that most AI value will derive from applying existing models rather than fundamental research. Several highlighted the parallel with the internet, where early innovation focused on infrastructure and protocols, but the real value explosion came later with applications built on top. Some pushed back slightly, arguing that continued R&D is crucial for tackling more complex problems and unlocking the next level of AI capabilities. One commenter suggested the balance might shift between application and research depending on the specific area of AI. Another noted the importance of "glue work" and tooling to facilitate broader automation, suggesting future value lies not only in novel models but also in the systems that make them accessible and deployable.
DARPA's BioManufacturing in Space program seeks to leverage the unique microgravity environment of space to grow large, complex biostructures currently impossible to produce on Earth. This research aims to overcome terrestrial limitations like gravity-induced stresses and nutrient transport challenges. The program will explore new biomanufacturing techniques and evaluate the feasibility of producing these structures in orbit, with potential applications including tissue engineering, organ fabrication, and advanced materials development for defense and commercial sectors.
HN commenters express skepticism about the feasibility and practicality of DARPA's proposal to grow large biological structures in space. Several doubt the cost-effectiveness compared to Earth-based manufacturing, citing the expense of launching and maintaining such a complex system in orbit. Others question the specific advantages of microgravity for this purpose, suggesting alternative solutions like scaffolding or 3D bioprinting on Earth. Some raise concerns about potential biohazards and the ethical implications of creating large, novel biological structures. A few highlight the potential for scientific discovery and acknowledge the innovative nature of the project, albeit with reservations about its ultimate success. Several users also note the military context of DARPA's involvement, speculating about potential applications in areas like bioweapons or self-repairing spacecraft.
DARPA is seeking innovative research proposals for the development of large, adaptable bio-mechanical structures for use in space. The goal is to leverage biological systems like plant growth or fungal mycelia to create structures in orbit, reducing the reliance on traditional manufacturing and launch limitations. This research will focus on demonstrating the feasibility of bio-based structural materials that can self-assemble, self-repair, and adapt to changing mission needs in the harsh space environment. The program envisions structures potentially spanning kilometers in size, drastically changing the possibilities for space-based habitats, solar sails, and other large systems.
Hacker News users discuss the feasibility and practicality of DARPA's bio-engineered space structure concept. Several express skepticism about the project's timeline and the biological challenges involved, questioning the maturity of the underlying science and the ability to scale such a project within the proposed budget and timeframe. Some highlight the potential benefits of using biological systems for space construction, such as self-repair and adaptability, while others suggest focusing on more established materials science approaches. The discussion also touches upon the ethical implications of introducing engineered life forms into space and the potential for unintended consequences. A few commenters note the ambitious nature of the project and the possibility that it serves primarily as a stimulus for research and development in related fields.
Apple announced a plan to invest over $500 billion in the US economy over the next four years. This builds on the $430 billion contributed over the previous five years and includes direct spending with US suppliers, data center expansions, capital expenditures in US manufacturing, and investments in American jobs and innovation. The company highlights key areas like 5G innovation and silicon engineering, as well as supporting emerging technologies. Apple's commitment extends beyond its own operations to include investments in next-generation manufacturing and renewable energy projects across the country.
Hacker News commenters generally expressed skepticism about Apple's announced $500B investment. Several pointed out that this is not new spending, but a continuation of existing trends, repackaged as a large number for PR purposes. Some questioned the actual impact of this spending, suggesting much of it will go towards stock buybacks and dividends rather than job creation or meaningful technological advancement. Others discussed the potential influence of government incentives and tax breaks on Apple's decision. A few commenters highlighted Apple's reliance on Asian manufacturing, arguing that true investment in the US would involve more domestic production. Overall, the sentiment leaned towards viewing the announcement as primarily a public relations move rather than a substantial shift in Apple's business strategy.
Japan's scientific output has declined in recent decades, despite its continued investment in research. To regain its position as a scientific powerhouse, the article argues Japan needs to overhaul its research funding system. This includes shifting from short-term, small grants towards more substantial, long-term funding that encourages risk-taking and ambitious projects. Additionally, reducing bureaucratic burdens, fostering international collaboration, and improving career stability for young researchers are crucial for attracting and retaining top talent. The article emphasizes the importance of prioritizing quality over quantity and promoting a culture of scientific excellence to revitalize Japan's research landscape.
HN commenters discuss Japan's potential for scientific resurgence, contingent on reforming its funding model. Several highlight the stifling effects of short-term grants and the emphasis on seniority over merit, contrasting it with the more dynamic, risk-taking approach in the US. Some suggest Japan's hierarchical culture and risk aversion contribute to the problem. Others point to successful examples of Japanese innovation, arguing that a return to basic research and less bureaucracy could reignite scientific progress. The lack of academic freedom and the pressure to conform are also cited as obstacles to creativity. Finally, some commenters express skepticism about Japan's ability to change its deeply ingrained system.
Bell Labs, celebrating its centennial, represents a century of groundbreaking innovation. From its origins as a research arm of AT&T, it pioneered advancements in telecommunications, including the transistor, laser, solar cell, information theory, and the Unix operating system and C programming language. This prolific era fostered a collaborative environment where scientific exploration thrived, leading to numerous Nobel Prizes and shaping the modern technological landscape. However, the breakup of AT&T and subsequent shifts in corporate focus impacted Bell Labs' trajectory, leading to a diminished research scope and a transition towards more commercially driven objectives. Despite this evolution, Bell Labs' legacy of fundamental scientific discovery and engineering prowess remains a benchmark for industrial research.
HN commenters largely praised the linked PDF documenting Bell Labs' history, calling it well-written, informative, and a good overview of a critical institution. Several pointed out specific areas they found interesting, like the discussion of "directed basic research," the balance between pure research and product development, and the evolution of corporate research labs in general. Some lamented the decline of similar research-focused environments today, contrasting Bell Labs' heyday with the current focus on short-term profits. A few commenters added further historical details or pointed to related resources like the book Idea Factory. One commenter questioned the framing of Bell Labs as primarily an American institution given its reliance on global talent.
Summary of Comments ( 43 )
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43692360
Hacker News users generally agreed with the premise of the linked article about the U.S. becoming a science superpower through government-funded research during and after WWII, particularly highlighting the role of mission-oriented projects like the Manhattan Project and Apollo program. Some commenters emphasized the importance of basic research as a foundation for later applied advancements. Others pointed out the significance of immigration and talent attraction in the U.S.'s scientific success. Several expressed concern that the current political and funding climate may hinder future scientific progress, with less emphasis on basic research and more focus on short-term gains. A few cautioned against romanticizing the past, noting that wartime research also had negative consequences. There was also discussion of the cultural shift that prioritized science and engineering during this period, which some argued is now fading.
The Hacker News post titled "How the U.S. Became a Science Superpower" (linking to a Steve Blank article) has a moderate number of comments, offering a variety of perspectives on the article's thesis.
Several commenters agree with the core premise, highlighting the importance of government-funded research, especially during and after World War II, and the influx of European scientists as crucial factors in the U.S.'s scientific dominance. One commenter emphasizes Vannevar Bush's role and the establishment of a sustained funding mechanism for basic research. Another notes the significant contribution of Jewish scientists fleeing Nazi persecution. A further comment expands on the role of operation Paperclip and the ethical ambiguities surrounding the recruitment of German scientists.
Some commenters offer additional factors not explicitly mentioned in the article, such as the cultural emphasis on practical application and engineering, the vast resources and market size of the U.S., and the role of philanthropy in supporting research. One comment suggests the U.S.'s decentralized model of higher education played a role in fostering innovation, while another points to the openness of American society to immigrants.
A couple of commenters express skepticism about the "superpower" designation, arguing that other countries have also made substantial contributions to science and that the U.S. has faced challenges in recent decades, including declining funding for research and education. One points to the post-WWII environment as exceptionally conducive to the flourishing of science due to the combination of destroyed infrastructure abroad, new technologies and a focus on "big science" projects in the states. Another counterpoint notes potential oversimplifications in the narrative, suggesting the story is more nuanced than the article presents.
Finally, some comments focus on specific aspects of the article, such as the role of Bell Labs and the development of the transistor, or offer further reading on related topics, indicating engagement with the material and a desire to explore the historical context more deeply. One such comment mentions the book "Science Since Babylon," by Derek J. de Solla Price, offering an alternative view on the history of science and scientific revolutions.
While generally agreeing with the article's premise, the comments provide further context, nuance, and occasional counterpoints, enriching the discussion around the factors contributing to the U.S.'s scientific prominence. They provide a valuable layer of critical analysis and expand on the core ideas presented by Steve Blank.