5 ms·

Canadian government "investments" like this end up just sucking all the oxygen out of the ecosystem and incentivizing everyone to work to get government money i

by andy99 3y ago

Canadian government "investments" like this end up just sucking all the oxygen out of the ecosystem and incentivizing everyone to work to get government money instead of actually working on something industrially relevant. This will be a net loss for the country and a gain for a few well connected groups.

belter 3y ago
It's exactly the same with EU Funds.
- svara 3y ago
  That's a risk, but really in Europe the alternative often isn't to find private investment somewhere else, but to continue working for some big company or university or whatever. The EU runs the programs it does because otherwise no one would be funding innovation.
  - CalRobert 3y ago
    Honest question.. where do we find these EU programs?
    - svara 3y ago
      https://eic.ec.europa.eu/eic-2023-work-programme_en https://eic.ec.europa.eu/eic-2023-work-programme_en
- wongarsu 3y ago
  Many of the big EU grants are very broad, so you can bring nearly any project and argue your case. Sure, certain things increase your chance of acceptance, and those don't always align with industry needs, but the same can be said about any funding source. It's not like VCs are known for wisely allocating money according to industry needs either. What matters is giving enough projects a chance and letting the market solve the rest. EU grants do have other issues and are difficult as your sole source of money. But I don't think funneling everyone away from industry needs is one of them.
- mistrial9 3y ago
  this is overly pessimistic -- for example 'Horizon 2020' in the EU had half failures perhaps.. but a couple of the projects are really strong and now growing.. so, no.
  - postepowanieadm 3y ago
    That's really optimistic.
abdullahkhalids 3y ago
> The bulk of that — $2 billion — is going into a fund that will aim to provide access to computing capabilities and technical infrastructure. What else should the Canadian government do? How do other more successful countries use such money to jumpstart some industrial sector?
- barfard 3y ago
  tax cuts instead of subsidies might do better
  - abdullahkhalids 3y ago
    Interestingly, last year, Canada introduced tax credits to support the clean energy technology sector [1]. Its "total over $60 billion over the coming ten years" [1]. But there is also some actual money in the same package. So I wonder, what the thinking of the government is in deciding when tax credits and when direct subsidy. [1] https://www.canada.ca/en/environment-climate-change/news/2023/04/minister-guilbeault-highlights-the-big-five-new-clean-investment-tax-credits-in-budget-2023-to-support-sustainable-made-in-canada-clean-economy.html https://www.canada.ca/en/environment-climate-change/news/202...
    - depereo 3y ago
      Tax cuts are used more often when the government wants to see more private investment into an industry. Not really an issue with 'AI' right now. Direct subsidy is more common when the government wants to see a particular outcome; then they can more easily steer those funds to realize it.
  - 1attice 3y ago
    citation needed.
  - mitthrowaway2 3y ago
    I would say not necessarily cuts, but at least tax reforms to de-risk equity compensation. Canada doesn't have an 83b election equivalent, and it's easy to end up losing a lot of money through taxes on illiquid stock options that end up amounting to more than the stock options are eventually worth. An alternative, for example, would be to allow paying taxes on stock options "in-kind": have the option to give the government a share of the stock options themselves, rather than paying that percentage in dollars on a valuation that you can't actually sell them for.
ein0p 3y ago
Drop the word “Canadian” - it applies worldwide, with very few exceptions.
eli_gottlieb 3y ago
Ummm... where do you think industrially relevant research comes from?
1attice 3y ago
That's the crux of the problem. 1. You have a country that is, broadly speaking, industrially oriented towards selling raw goods (wood, metals) to other countries, from whom you buy back finished products. It might not technically be mercantilism, but the dynamic is the same, and, like mercantilism, it's a mug's game. It's also increasingly unpopular with your population, which is increasingly aligned with environmentalists, because of this whole world-endy forest-firey junket that's on trend. (Fun aside: look up 'TMX'. They will never get that built.) 2. So: you want to move to a more modern economy that doesn't make you a vassal state to 'allies' (who are also your customers, who are also your employers, who also run the general store from which you buy your shovels,) and does not inflame the ire of your increasingly restive voters, who have just spent a summer inhaling the fumorous remains of several hundred thousand trees. (And not the fun kind.) So, why not just laissez the faire and let the economy sort it out? 3. (Answering 2) Because, it turns out, that unguided markets entrench existing patterns. Left to their own devices, I'm sure Canada's engineering firms would come up with _even better ways_ of ripping oil from tar sands, but, again, by 1. and 2., you really don't want to do that these days, and besides, what are you going to do when demand for dilbit goes down? There are these 'solar' panels, now, you see, and --- And so, 4. You meddle with the shape and direction of the market. You know this will cause ineffiencies, and you know that some quotient of well-connected asshats will get rich from this by doing essentially nothing. But it's still more appealing than sticking with 1 and 2. 5. If you can do this in a way that hooks into existing trends (and AI is, for most normal people, still a Big New Thing,) you may also win a leapfrog opportunity over your neighbours, pulling a TSMC-but-AI out of thin air. (Perhaps the aurora borealis.) That's a lotto ticket worth scratching. Just ask Taiwan. That's why the government funds things up here. Because they wouldn't happen at all, otherwise, and that outcome is less optimal than having them happen inefficiently. The waste along the way is a necessary evil. No pump is 100% efficient, but if gets water from the well, who cares? In a hundred years, we don't want to be still selling maple syrup to the ever-warring states of Trumpida and Greater Oregonifornia. We want to be selling the shovels. (A nation can dream, can't it?) And this fund, which is less than a 40th of what was spent on a nonexistent and unworkable oil pipeline, helps get us closer to that.
- skeeter2020 3y ago
  We are huge exporters, but I don't agree with your premise; one of the things we export in huge volume is the engineering talent needed to make progress. These are young economic migrants, who leave to enrich a new country, typically the US. If they come back it's generally after they've made their career contributions and are ready to draw on a more generous social system. >> You meddle with the shape and direction of the market. It's worse than that; they're picking winners and losers, and that's inexcusable.
WhereIsTheTruth 3y ago
Nuclear energy is the fruit of government money, what VCs do with AI currently is a waste of both time, energy and talents, generative AI is not what's important https://www.ft.com/content/0cdf78f9-e2cc-48ff-ba65-027f1cf83334 https://www.ft.com/content/0cdf78f9-e2cc-48ff-ba65-027f1cf83...
- WhereIsTheTruth 3y ago
  Obviously downvoted, hence why the current climate ;)

by andy99 3y ago

belter 3y ago

It's exactly the same with EU Funds.

svara 3y ago
That's a risk, but really in Europe the alternative often isn't to find private investment somewhere else, but to continue working for some big company or university or whatever. The EU runs the programs it does because otherwise no one would be funding innovation.
- CalRobert 3y ago
  Honest question.. where do we find these EU programs?
  - svara 3y ago
    https://eic.ec.europa.eu/eic-2023-work-programme_en https://eic.ec.europa.eu/eic-2023-work-programme_en
wongarsu 3y ago
Many of the big EU grants are very broad, so you can bring nearly any project and argue your case. Sure, certain things increase your chance of acceptance, and those don't always align with industry needs, but the same can be said about any funding source. It's not like VCs are known for wisely allocating money according to industry needs either. What matters is giving enough projects a chance and letting the market solve the rest. EU grants do have other issues and are difficult as your sole source of money. But I don't think funneling everyone away from industry needs is one of them.
mistrial9 3y ago
this is overly pessimistic -- for example 'Horizon 2020' in the EU had half failures perhaps.. but a couple of the projects are really strong and now growing.. so, no.
- postepowanieadm 3y ago
  That's really optimistic.

abdullahkhalids 3y ago

> The bulk of that — $2 billion — is going into a fund that will aim to provide access to computing capabilities and technical infrastructure. What else should the Canadian government do? How do other more successful countries use such money to jumpstart some industrial sector?

barfard 3y ago
tax cuts instead of subsidies might do better
- abdullahkhalids 3y ago
  Interestingly, last year, Canada introduced tax credits to support the clean energy technology sector [1]. Its "total over $60 billion over the coming ten years" [1]. But there is also some actual money in the same package. So I wonder, what the thinking of the government is in deciding when tax credits and when direct subsidy. [1] https://www.canada.ca/en/environment-climate-change/news/2023/04/minister-guilbeault-highlights-the-big-five-new-clean-investment-tax-credits-in-budget-2023-to-support-sustainable-made-in-canada-clean-economy.html https://www.canada.ca/en/environment-climate-change/news/202...
  - depereo 3y ago
    Tax cuts are used more often when the government wants to see more private investment into an industry. Not really an issue with 'AI' right now. Direct subsidy is more common when the government wants to see a particular outcome; then they can more easily steer those funds to realize it.
- 1attice 3y ago
  citation needed.
- mitthrowaway2 3y ago
  I would say not necessarily cuts, but at least tax reforms to de-risk equity compensation. Canada doesn't have an 83b election equivalent, and it's easy to end up losing a lot of money through taxes on illiquid stock options that end up amounting to more than the stock options are eventually worth. An alternative, for example, would be to allow paying taxes on stock options "in-kind": have the option to give the government a share of the stock options themselves, rather than paying that percentage in dollars on a valuation that you can't actually sell them for.

ein0p 3y ago

Drop the word “Canadian” - it applies worldwide, with very few exceptions.

eli_gottlieb 3y ago

Ummm... where do you think industrially relevant research comes from?

1attice 3y ago

That's the crux of the problem. 1. You have a country that is, broadly speaking, industrially oriented towards selling raw goods (wood, metals) to other countries, from whom you buy back finished products. It might not technically be mercantilism, but the dynamic is the same, and, like mercantilism, it's a mug's game. It's also increasingly unpopular with your population, which is increasingly aligned with environmentalists, because of this whole world-endy forest-firey junket that's on trend. (Fun aside: look up 'TMX'. They will never get that built.) 2. So: you want to move to a more modern economy that doesn't make you a vassal state to 'allies' (who are also your customers, who are also your employers, who also run the general store from which you buy your shovels,) and does not inflame the ire of your increasingly restive voters, who have just spent a summer inhaling the fumorous remains of several hundred thousand trees. (And not the fun kind.) So, why not just laissez the faire and let the economy sort it out? 3. (Answering 2) Because, it turns out, that unguided markets entrench existing patterns. Left to their own devices, I'm sure Canada's engineering firms would come up with _even better ways_ of ripping oil from tar sands, but, again, by 1. and 2., you really don't want to do that these days, and besides, what are you going to do when demand for dilbit goes down? There are these 'solar' panels, now, you see, and --- And so, 4. You meddle with the shape and direction of the market. You know this will cause ineffiencies, and you know that some quotient of well-connected asshats will get rich from this by doing essentially nothing. But it's still more appealing than sticking with 1 and 2. 5. If you can do this in a way that hooks into existing trends (and AI is, for most normal people, still a Big New Thing,) you may also win a leapfrog opportunity over your neighbours, pulling a TSMC-but-AI out of thin air. (Perhaps the aurora borealis.) That's a lotto ticket worth scratching. Just ask Taiwan. That's why the government funds things up here. Because they wouldn't happen at all, otherwise, and that outcome is less optimal than having them happen inefficiently. The waste along the way is a necessary evil. No pump is 100% efficient, but if gets water from the well, who cares? In a hundred years, we don't want to be still selling maple syrup to the ever-warring states of Trumpida and Greater Oregonifornia. We want to be selling the shovels. (A nation can dream, can't it?) And this fund, which is less than a 40th of what was spent on a nonexistent and unworkable oil pipeline, helps get us closer to that.

skeeter2020 3y ago
We are huge exporters, but I don't agree with your premise; one of the things we export in huge volume is the engineering talent needed to make progress. These are young economic migrants, who leave to enrich a new country, typically the US. If they come back it's generally after they've made their career contributions and are ready to draw on a more generous social system. >> You meddle with the shape and direction of the market. It's worse than that; they're picking winners and losers, and that's inexcusable.

WhereIsTheTruth 3y ago

Nuclear energy is the fruit of government money, what VCs do with AI currently is a waste of both time, energy and talents, generative AI is not what's important https://www.ft.com/content/0cdf78f9-e2cc-48ff-ba65-027f1cf83334 https://www.ft.com/content/0cdf78f9-e2cc-48ff-ba65-027f1cf83...

WhereIsTheTruth 3y ago
Obviously downvoted, hence why the current climate ;)