8 ms·
You still have to keep in mind that something like 90% of the technological advances of the XX century were born in US labs. So it’s not that broken.
by cm2187 6y ago
You still have to keep in mind that something like 90% of the technological advances of the XX century were born in US labs. So it’s not that broken.
- kleiba 6y agoWell, if technological advances is the only thing you care for, sure, then go ahead and get rid of stuff like pure maths. However, are you sure that these advances would not have been made if the US had a different system? Like I argued before, Europe has pretty much copied the system by now but I don't see much in terms of catching up. Take A.I., for instance: completely dominated by the U.S. and China. Europe? Like in many things in life, copying someone else's successful model is by no means a guarantee that you're going to be successful too. Why? Because your circumstances are usually completely different from whatever you're copying.
- turbonaut 6y ago> Take A.I., for instance: completely dominated by the U.S. and China. Europe? DeepMind?
- kleiba 6y agoAlphabet is not a university.
- quonn 6y agoAlphabet bought it. But it‘s a direct result of university research with the same people. Just check the field of reinforcement learning.
- kleiba 6y agoTrue, but a singular example does not save the continent.
- disgruntledphd2 6y agoThe first place Facebook opened an AI research centre was Paris. They certainly didn't pick it for the food ;) I think if you look at where the researchers are, Europe does really well. As per usual though, this is poorly commercialised.
- thethought 6y agoIn France software companies classify software development as R&d which I think has major tax upside for US companies with RD in France.
- disgruntledphd2 6y agoLet's be clear. They set up the office in Paris because Yann LeCunn had really good colleagues and students there. This would seem to militate against a notion that Europe doesn't do AI. Now, Europe definitely doesn't commercialise AI well, but that's a different point.
- mbrodersen 6y agoDeepMind is European. ARM is European. The best chip manufacturing companies are in Taiwan. The best car makers are in Europe. The #1 shipping line (Maersk) is in Europe. The language we are speaking right now is European. The modern corporation, including shares, was invented in Europe. Alan Turing was European. Do I really need to go on?
- stablenode 6y agocm2187: I wonder if you realize that a significant factor in the US scientific prowess is a certain event in the XX century history of Europe which forced a huge number of scientists to move to the US because they weren't 'Aryan enough'. After said XX century event another wave of scientists arrived (or were brought) to the US, only these were 'quite Aryan' but facing career oblivion in Europe due to their past political associations. One way or another, a critical mass of excellent researchers ended up in the US and became a technological asset that no other country could frankly match or even get close, solidifying its technological preeminence for the rest of the century. Obviously, this wouldn't have been possible without generous US funding for science as well (the economy being another area where the US has dominated the XX century). Also, '90%' sounds suspiciously like a number you produced from deep within your colon.
- znpy 6y agoI upvoted for the finesse of your last line.
- cm2187 6y agoOn your first point, it is certainly the case that many scientists came from abroad, and in fact that is still the case today, you don't need Nazi persecutions for that. But we are talking about whether the academic system produces game changing research, not where the researchers were born (in fact if anything,the fact that people are attracted by this model is a testimony to its effectiveness). As for the 90%, agree, that's where I found that number. But do the exercise of listing all the major technological advances you can think of that mattered on the XX century, and I think you will likely end up close to that.
- stablenode 6y agoWhat exactly constitutes a 'major technological advance'? If we're counting Turing Awards by university affiliation, then I believe 90% is probably a good estimate for the US share (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Turing_Award_laureates_by_university_affiliation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Turing_Award_laureates...). If we're counting Nobel Prizes in Physics, Chemistry and Medicine, it suddenly becomes less clear why this should be true (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Nobel_laureates_by_university_affiliation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Nobel_laureates_by_uni...), and if we're counting the number of Fields Medals (the most relevant award given the subject of the post), the numbers seem to suggest that the US contribution to pure mathematics is not as dominant as you might imagine: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Fields_Medal_winners_by_university_affiliation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Fields_Medal_winners_b... In any event, I think this is all getting rather silly. I was simply making the point that historically science in the US has benefited tremendously from having a large number of capable people that were trained within a different system. Where they were born is absolutely irrelevant. A certain W. von Braun was indeed an American, as were his 'major technological advances' that many in the US are rightly proud of, but he was very much a product of German science (I hope you don't find this point controversial).
- mbrodersen 6y agoNot true. Not even close to being true. Unless you very narrowly cherry pick technology advances to be whatever makes your statement true. Even the language we are speaking right now was invented in Europe.