3 ms·

What you’re running into is the trend away from investing in basic research, in which almost everything (in the US) is now centered around a supposed path to pr

by antonvs 2mo ago

What you’re running into is the trend away from investing in basic research, in which almost everything (in the US) is now centered around a supposed path to profitability. As a result, in a sense, founding a company can be getting funding for a research project. A good example is nuclear fusion. There’s no nuclear fusion company, or research institute for that matter, that’s within even 50 years of having a commercially viable end product. There’s no strong evidence that that’s even possible. In other words, the entire field is still very much in the research phase, with no clear path to a commercial outcome. Yet there are something like 50 - 80 funded nuclear fusion companies, collectively funded to the tune of at least about $14 billion. They’re all essentially doing research, which includes building prototypes and testing. Of course, in order to get that funding, most of these companies have announced milestone dates of various kinds, including dates by which they’ll have a saleable product. All of those dates are ridiculously optimistic, and any investor who’s done due diligence should know that. Which leads one to wonder what these investors are thinking. Some of them are explicitly indulging in moonshots: funding something desirable that may not work. They’re essentially funding research, and they know it. There are several other categories though, including people that are hedging - betting on a possible payoff. There are also presumably some people who actually believe the target dates (who also presumably have not done good due diligence.) Is what these fusion companies are doing unethical? A case can be made that it is, particularly when it comes to that last category of investor I mentioned. On the other hand, in an environment where basic research is discouraged, “life will find a way,” and you get these weird distortions of what a funded company is. > could i just pull up with a list of my research interests, convince people its a sellable product, and score funding? If you can pull off the middle part about convincing people, the answer is definitely yes. That’s ultimately what the situation you described is about.

tyre 2mo ago
> There’s no nuclear fusion company, or research institute for that matter, that’s within even 50 years of having a commercially viable end product. How could anyone know that? I’m guessing the same could have been said about what LLMs can do today, 20 years ago. If you’d asked scientists in 1925 how close the world was to a nuclear bomb, almost zero would have any idea what you were talking about (in the sense of how to go about building one.) Predicting innovation is inaccurate enough to be silly. Investors are betting that someone figures it out on a shorter time horizon.
- antonvs 2mo ago
  I'll respond to that, but it doesn't really matter to my basic point: that nuclear fusion startups are all, without exception, in a research phase with no clear path to a commercial product. In other words, investors are currently funding basic research, whether they realize it or not. But to answer your question: > How could anyone know that? By studying the basic physics and engineering involved. The same way we know we aren't going to be doing interstellar travel in the next 50 years. > I’m guessing the same could have been said about what LLMs can do today, 20 years ago. It's not comparable. LLMs didn't require dealing with a plasma ten times hotter than the core of the Sun, without the benefit of the Sun's gravitational pressure and density. Commercially viable nuclear fusion power is so far beyond the capabilities of current, and possibly even future, engineering that it's not even funny. A better comparison would be if there were a bunch of interstellar travel startups, giving dates for when they plan to reach Proxima Centauri. Why don't those exist? Because nobody would believe them, for the kinds of reasons I've already mentioned. But with fusion power, we could theoretically do that here on Earth, leading gullible investors to say, "So you're saying there's a chance!" > Predicting innovation is inaccurate enough to be silly. Innovation is what happens after the basic research has pointed the way. We're not at that stage with fusion power. > Investors are betting that someone figures it out on a shorter time horizon. Investors who haven't done good due diligence, or who foolishly trusted founders, are betting that. A couple of references: "Fusion power unlikely to become competitive" - https://www.nature.com/articles/s41560-026-02022-9 https://www.nature.com/articles/s41560-026-02022-9 : "Policymakers should not rely on, or fund, fusion power as a core pillar of future clean energy systems unless designs with different characteristics are developed." "Notes on the Recent Hype about Imminence of Commercial Fusion Energy" - https://www.belfercenter.org/research-analysis/notes-recent-hype-about-imminence-commercial-fusion-energy https://www.belfercenter.org/research-analysis/notes-recent-... : "I think it’s fair to say that the scientific and technological problems that must be solved on the road to a practical fusion reactor—beyond energy breakeven in sustained operation—are not much easier than the breakeven problem itself, which is still unsolved after 70 years of costly international effort." "Fusion reactors: Not what they’re cracked up to be" - https://thebulletin.org/2017/04/fusion-reactors-not-what-theyre-cracked-up-to-be/ https://thebulletin.org/2017/04/fusion-reactors-not-what-the...
eli_gottlieb 2mo ago
> Is what these fusion companies are doing unethical? A case can be made that it is, particularly when it comes to that last category of investor I mentioned. On the other hand, in an environment where basic research is discouraged, “life will find a way,” and you get these weird distortions of what a funded company is. I think those VCs are acting quite unethically. If they want to fund basic research, they should just start a foundation that issues grants for basic research.

by antonvs 2mo ago

tyre 2mo ago

> There’s no nuclear fusion company, or research institute for that matter, that’s within even 50 years of having a commercially viable end product. How could anyone know that? I’m guessing the same could have been said about what LLMs can do today, 20 years ago. If you’d asked scientists in 1925 how close the world was to a nuclear bomb, almost zero would have any idea what you were talking about (in the sense of how to go about building one.) Predicting innovation is inaccurate enough to be silly. Investors are betting that someone figures it out on a shorter time horizon.

antonvs 2mo ago
I'll respond to that, but it doesn't really matter to my basic point: that nuclear fusion startups are all, without exception, in a research phase with no clear path to a commercial product. In other words, investors are currently funding basic research, whether they realize it or not. But to answer your question: > How could anyone know that? By studying the basic physics and engineering involved. The same way we know we aren't going to be doing interstellar travel in the next 50 years. > I’m guessing the same could have been said about what LLMs can do today, 20 years ago. It's not comparable. LLMs didn't require dealing with a plasma ten times hotter than the core of the Sun, without the benefit of the Sun's gravitational pressure and density. Commercially viable nuclear fusion power is so far beyond the capabilities of current, and possibly even future, engineering that it's not even funny. A better comparison would be if there were a bunch of interstellar travel startups, giving dates for when they plan to reach Proxima Centauri. Why don't those exist? Because nobody would believe them, for the kinds of reasons I've already mentioned. But with fusion power, we could theoretically do that here on Earth, leading gullible investors to say, "So you're saying there's a chance!" > Predicting innovation is inaccurate enough to be silly. Innovation is what happens after the basic research has pointed the way. We're not at that stage with fusion power. > Investors are betting that someone figures it out on a shorter time horizon. Investors who haven't done good due diligence, or who foolishly trusted founders, are betting that. A couple of references: "Fusion power unlikely to become competitive" - https://www.nature.com/articles/s41560-026-02022-9 https://www.nature.com/articles/s41560-026-02022-9 : "Policymakers should not rely on, or fund, fusion power as a core pillar of future clean energy systems unless designs with different characteristics are developed." "Notes on the Recent Hype about Imminence of Commercial Fusion Energy" - https://www.belfercenter.org/research-analysis/notes-recent-hype-about-imminence-commercial-fusion-energy https://www.belfercenter.org/research-analysis/notes-recent-... : "I think it’s fair to say that the scientific and technological problems that must be solved on the road to a practical fusion reactor—beyond energy breakeven in sustained operation—are not much easier than the breakeven problem itself, which is still unsolved after 70 years of costly international effort." "Fusion reactors: Not what they’re cracked up to be" - https://thebulletin.org/2017/04/fusion-reactors-not-what-theyre-cracked-up-to-be/ https://thebulletin.org/2017/04/fusion-reactors-not-what-the...

eli_gottlieb 2mo ago

> Is what these fusion companies are doing unethical? A case can be made that it is, particularly when it comes to that last category of investor I mentioned. On the other hand, in an environment where basic research is discouraged, “life will find a way,” and you get these weird distortions of what a funded company is. I think those VCs are acting quite unethically. If they want to fund basic research, they should just start a foundation that issues grants for basic research.