4 ms·
They also had several very specific pathways to the end result: if the calutrons didn't work for refinement, the thermal plant might; if the uranium didn't work
by aab0 11y ago
They also had several very specific pathways to the end result: if the calutrons didn't work for refinement, the thermal plant might; if the uranium didn't work, the plutonium might; if the implosion design didn't work, the gun type would definitely work; if a fission bomb didn't work, maybe Teller could jump ahead to a fusion bomb design; etc. Similarly for Apollo: many of the challenges had multiple viable approaches taken in parallel. This is part of why the Manhattan and Apollo projects worked.
In AI, it's not at all obvious what path leads to the end goal, much less there being multiple avenues each with a decent chance of working if enough money is thrown at them.
- semi-extrinsic 11y agoI keep quoting this, but I really liked Derek Lowe's comment on the similar "moonshot funding" proposal for cancer research by Joe Biden and co.: "Trying to cure cancer in this way would be like trying to go to the moon without really knowing how rocket engines actually work, without being quite sure if Newton’s laws of motion would hold up, and with some real uncertainty in the position of the moon." http://blogs.sciencemag.org/pipeline/archives/2016/01/15/moonshot-they-say http://blogs.sciencemag.org/pipeline/archives/2016/01/15/moo...