3 ms·

It’s a shame the article fails to mention the history of Silicon Valley and the foundation of the tech sector being built almost entirely on Military R&D: Stev

It’s a shame the article fails to mention the history of Silicon Valley and the foundation of the tech sector being built almost entirely on Military R&D: Steve Blank “Secret History of Silicon Valley” https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=ZTC_RxWN_xo https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=ZTC_RxWN_xo Post WWII, 90%+ of R&D was military, a shockingly high number. Coinciding with the year the Berlin Wall fell in 1989 saw that military R&D proportion fall to rough parity: https://www.cove.org.au/trenchline/article-the-v-twin-effect/ https://www.cove.org.au/trenchline/article-the-v-twin-effect... Today, Military R&D has inverted compared to that post WWII, early Cold War environment making it only about 10% of R&D. But that raises the problem of duel use commercial technology. Commercial tech being combined or adapted for military purposes. Personally, I’m far more concerned with the export of commercial off the shelf tech modified for mass surveillance and control than I’m worried about kinetic weapon systems. Defence/Military money helped found Silicon Valley/Tech. In-Q-Tel(CIA) has been in the Valley funding startups for 2 decades: https://www.iqt.org https://www.iqt.org Hacking 4 Defense at Stanford is a more recent addition that leverages the increasing reliance of the military on commercial off this shelf tech(disclosure: I have had some involvement in H4D with their educator’s course). What’s OK and what isn’t for modifying commercial off the shelf tech for Defence/military use? What are the perceived black/white/grey delineations working in this space?

ItsMe000001 8y ago
That is one of my favorite videos. However, in this context, what do you propose? WWII was a "real war", it was easy to see you were on the good side and that it was worth fighting. Besides, that huge ("world") war already was in progress. Right now the situation is not exactly comparable? What I see from this is that somebody else - government or whatever - has a function, and relying on business alone won't work. They won't fund when returns are uncertain, no crazy ideas, no unlimited "costs don't matter" funding. What I also find interesting is that that was unlimited debt-based spending, anyone who had something that looked like an idea got funded to do whatever it took. And it worked, or is anybody still concerned about the amount of debt the US took on during WWII? So either we find a way for similar initiatives in peace times - or we wait for another huge war (or a similarly bad crisis) to convince the tax payers, but also motivate those doing the research, to get another round of innovation started with a similar disregard for debt, cost and plannability?
- chriselles 8y ago
  Good points. The defence sector simply can’t afford to fund every “good idea”. Especially every idea, once selected, that leads to multi-decade and multi-billion(trillion in case of F35) lock in. My thoughts, and hands on experience with military innovation, is focused on the bottom end. Both in terms of “user” rank and budget for prototype capability. I genuinely applaud those in the civilian tech sector who vote with their feet on moral/ethical perceptions. However, it doesn’t hurt to understand history. Both the early generations of Silicon Valley and tech sector history as well as the last generation(dot.com bubble). Money is flowing now, but all bubbles pop. Especially Saudi oil money(40 years ago it was the soon to be deposed Iranian Shah’s money propping up Grumman and others). When money gets tight, moral/ethical protest becomes less affordable. I put my time where my mouth is and try to teach young serving members of the military how to innovate themselves(at least an introduction to it), rather than paying contractors to do it for them. I can assure you the projects we’ve been working on have all been quite practical and ethical to work on. One concept I push is “Its always H-Hour” stolen from my old employer Amazon “It’s still Day 1”. Creating a sustainable sense of urgency and bias for action, but with an emphasis on resource austerity. We don’t have a Manhattan Project budget. We sometimes borrow things temporarily. The Indian austere innovation concept of Jugaad comes to mind. Personally, I think the answer is a mashup of H4D using a StartUp Weekend-like intro, Jugaad like resource austerity, and a YC like innovation community and pipeline. And perhaps something on the high end akin to the Israeli Talpiot Program. I sincerely hope those ethically opposed to working on defence projects can continue to afford to do so. As that will mean the tech sector is still awash with opportunity anD cash which will help nudge defence towards conducting more internal adaptation of commercial tech instead of relying on civilian contractors. I’d certainly prefer we don’t see another peer or near peer level major global conflict. But conflict seems eternally intertwined with the human condition. At least for now.
giancarlostoro 8y ago
Disclaimer: I will say I work for a company that does government contracts, I'm just a Software Engineer. I think where they screwed up is trying to force engineers of a non-military contract focused company into military work... I think Google should of made an entirely new company and gone out to hire people specifically for military work. I am surprised Alphabet has not figured this out. If I am hired to work on some camera system and now you want me to work on a weapons system. Guess what... I will probably quit if I dont feel comfortable with that kind of thing. We are employees not slaves. Give us work we want to do for best results. Otherwise hire new people to work on those NEW tasks... I do love the hidden history of SV videos they are a wealth of knowledge.

ItsMe000001 8y ago

That is one of my favorite videos. However, in this context, what do you propose? WWII was a "real war", it was easy to see you were on the good side and that it was worth fighting. Besides, that huge ("world") war already was in progress. Right now the situation is not exactly comparable? What I see from this is that somebody else - government or whatever - has a function, and relying on business alone won't work. They won't fund when returns are uncertain, no crazy ideas, no unlimited "costs don't matter" funding. What I also find interesting is that that was unlimited debt-based spending, anyone who had something that looked like an idea got funded to do whatever it took. And it worked, or is anybody still concerned about the amount of debt the US took on during WWII? So either we find a way for similar initiatives in peace times - or we wait for another huge war (or a similarly bad crisis) to convince the tax payers, but also motivate those doing the research, to get another round of innovation started with a similar disregard for debt, cost and plannability?

chriselles 8y ago
Good points. The defence sector simply can’t afford to fund every “good idea”. Especially every idea, once selected, that leads to multi-decade and multi-billion(trillion in case of F35) lock in. My thoughts, and hands on experience with military innovation, is focused on the bottom end. Both in terms of “user” rank and budget for prototype capability. I genuinely applaud those in the civilian tech sector who vote with their feet on moral/ethical perceptions. However, it doesn’t hurt to understand history. Both the early generations of Silicon Valley and tech sector history as well as the last generation(dot.com bubble). Money is flowing now, but all bubbles pop. Especially Saudi oil money(40 years ago it was the soon to be deposed Iranian Shah’s money propping up Grumman and others). When money gets tight, moral/ethical protest becomes less affordable. I put my time where my mouth is and try to teach young serving members of the military how to innovate themselves(at least an introduction to it), rather than paying contractors to do it for them. I can assure you the projects we’ve been working on have all been quite practical and ethical to work on. One concept I push is “Its always H-Hour” stolen from my old employer Amazon “It’s still Day 1”. Creating a sustainable sense of urgency and bias for action, but with an emphasis on resource austerity. We don’t have a Manhattan Project budget. We sometimes borrow things temporarily. The Indian austere innovation concept of Jugaad comes to mind. Personally, I think the answer is a mashup of H4D using a StartUp Weekend-like intro, Jugaad like resource austerity, and a YC like innovation community and pipeline. And perhaps something on the high end akin to the Israeli Talpiot Program. I sincerely hope those ethically opposed to working on defence projects can continue to afford to do so. As that will mean the tech sector is still awash with opportunity anD cash which will help nudge defence towards conducting more internal adaptation of commercial tech instead of relying on civilian contractors. I’d certainly prefer we don’t see another peer or near peer level major global conflict. But conflict seems eternally intertwined with the human condition. At least for now.

giancarlostoro 8y ago

Disclaimer: I will say I work for a company that does government contracts, I'm just a Software Engineer. I think where they screwed up is trying to force engineers of a non-military contract focused company into military work... I think Google should of made an entirely new company and gone out to hire people specifically for military work. I am surprised Alphabet has not figured this out. If I am hired to work on some camera system and now you want me to work on a weapons system. Guess what... I will probably quit if I dont feel comfortable with that kind of thing. We are employees not slaves. Give us work we want to do for best results. Otherwise hire new people to work on those NEW tasks... I do love the hidden history of SV videos they are a wealth of knowledge.