5 ms·

How are they becoming less relevant? The DARPA grand challenges have bootstrapped: 1. Self driving cars and got them working as a prototype. [1] 2. A rapid Or

How are they becoming less relevant? The DARPA grand challenges have bootstrapped: 1. Self driving cars and got them working as a prototype. [1] 2. A rapid Orbital Launch Program (Still in progress after only one competitor left)[2] 3. A subterranean challenge to map and search underground environments [1] 4. A way to use social networking to find something that is time critical [2] 5. Onion routing which is used in Tor. [3] 6. Cyber Grand Challenge to automate the exploitation and securing network systems [4] Note that competitors also have open sourced what they have done. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DARPA_Grand_Challenge https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DARPA_Grand_Challenge [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DARPA_Network_Challenge https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DARPA_Network_Challenge [3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Onion_routing https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Onion_routing https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DARPA_Grand_Challenge_(2007) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DARPA_Grand_Challenge_(2007) [4] https://www.darpa.mil/program/cyber-grand-challenge https://www.darpa.mil/program/cyber-grand-challenge

riazrizvi 6y ago
How are they less relevant? Well it's a bit left-field but I believe part of the reason why the political climate has become more pro-trust within the last twenty years is that international tech dominance is a national security boon. DARPA is not going to be asked to create ground-breaking tech in search, tracking, social media, tech generally, because the tech giants are already providing more than defense strategists could possibly have hoped for, on the world stage. So instead we have these contests, the insights of which are handed out to existing companies to help them make incremental improvements. But the Onion browser isn't going to be rolled out to secure political autonomy throughout the world, or small business competitiveness because the data tracking is too valuable for surveillance programs. The national security/intel value of big tech companies has given those companies so much good will that govt officials/politicians have been unwilling to consider innovations that would undermine them.
- zitterbewegung 6y ago
  I’m not arguing applications I’m arguing innovation. They do the initial research and then companies monetize .
shoguning 6y ago
> The DARPA grand challenges have bootstrapped: I have a contrarian opinion about the impact of DARPA and related programs (ARPA-e especially). To some extent, there is a confusion of cause and effect. DARPA is good at identifying possible nascent technologies and funding them. They then have a flag planted, and can claim "we helped invent X", which is hard to disprove. But was it because of DARPA involvement, or was DARPA merely there at the right time? They have definitely funded plenty of projects that go nowhere. ARPA-e makes this strategy explicit. They'll give money to an up-and-coming startup between rounds and then claim all later investment as "follow-on funding". They then report "follow-on funding" as a success metric to congress, which seems easy to game. ARPA-e has been around for over 10 years and I don't think they can point to anything coming out of the program as a legitimate game changer. I do think the applied research programs do some good and has some impact, mostly as a way to convene the broader technology community. But for the most part I would rather have the government focus on funding basic research instead of applied research.
- koheripbal 6y ago
  There is a feedback loop here. They help fund existing ideas, get more people/companies involved, raise awareness on certain problems, and motivate more participants to do relevant research. So do they "invent"? ...well that's a semantic argument. The point is they absolutely help make things happen.
  - shoguning 6y ago
    My question is... do they really? They happen to be around when tech moves, but would it have moved without them? It's a historical counterfactual, and hard to argue about. I'm skeptical and I'm more skeptical of ARPA-e.
- wyattpeak 6y ago
  What's the difference between "helping invent X" and "identifying possible nascent technologies and funding them"? Nascent technologies aren't a fait accompli. Without funding, something expensive like a launch system isn't going to get anywhere no matter how clever an idea someone has on paper.

riazrizvi 6y ago

How are they less relevant? Well it's a bit left-field but I believe part of the reason why the political climate has become more pro-trust within the last twenty years is that international tech dominance is a national security boon. DARPA is not going to be asked to create ground-breaking tech in search, tracking, social media, tech generally, because the tech giants are already providing more than defense strategists could possibly have hoped for, on the world stage. So instead we have these contests, the insights of which are handed out to existing companies to help them make incremental improvements. But the Onion browser isn't going to be rolled out to secure political autonomy throughout the world, or small business competitiveness because the data tracking is too valuable for surveillance programs. The national security/intel value of big tech companies has given those companies so much good will that govt officials/politicians have been unwilling to consider innovations that would undermine them.

zitterbewegung 6y ago
I’m not arguing applications I’m arguing innovation. They do the initial research and then companies monetize .

shoguning 6y ago

> The DARPA grand challenges have bootstrapped: I have a contrarian opinion about the impact of DARPA and related programs (ARPA-e especially). To some extent, there is a confusion of cause and effect. DARPA is good at identifying possible nascent technologies and funding them. They then have a flag planted, and can claim "we helped invent X", which is hard to disprove. But was it because of DARPA involvement, or was DARPA merely there at the right time? They have definitely funded plenty of projects that go nowhere. ARPA-e makes this strategy explicit. They'll give money to an up-and-coming startup between rounds and then claim all later investment as "follow-on funding". They then report "follow-on funding" as a success metric to congress, which seems easy to game. ARPA-e has been around for over 10 years and I don't think they can point to anything coming out of the program as a legitimate game changer. I do think the applied research programs do some good and has some impact, mostly as a way to convene the broader technology community. But for the most part I would rather have the government focus on funding basic research instead of applied research.

koheripbal 6y ago
There is a feedback loop here. They help fund existing ideas, get more people/companies involved, raise awareness on certain problems, and motivate more participants to do relevant research. So do they "invent"? ...well that's a semantic argument. The point is they absolutely help make things happen.
- shoguning 6y ago
  My question is... do they really? They happen to be around when tech moves, but would it have moved without them? It's a historical counterfactual, and hard to argue about. I'm skeptical and I'm more skeptical of ARPA-e.
wyattpeak 6y ago
What's the difference between "helping invent X" and "identifying possible nascent technologies and funding them"? Nascent technologies aren't a fait accompli. Without funding, something expensive like a launch system isn't going to get anywhere no matter how clever an idea someone has on paper.