2 ms·

Nobody knows how to do Fusion, AGI or figure out how to make people live longer. These are engineering ventures where step 1 isn't even vaguely understood. You

Nobody knows how to do Fusion, AGI or figure out how to make people live longer. These are engineering ventures where step 1 isn't even vaguely understood. You make it sound as if throwing money at them will make them happen. No. We have already thrown money at these problems, and they haven't made appreciable progress at all. The nice thing about space travel: we know what the intermediate steps are, and we also know it has a history of appreciable technological spinoffs. Like, say, microchips. Blue sky goals are noble aspirations, but immediate (say in 10 years) achievable goals are vastly more productive.

AndrewKemendo 12y ago
Nobody knew how to land on the moon or control nuclear fission either... We have already thrown money at these problems Not even close. There is no "Manhattan Project" for any of those like there was for the space race/nuclear bomb. If the same amount of resources were put toward AGI ($<100M* since 1956) or Fusion ($29B* since 1954) as was put toward just the apollo program alone ($~110B* from 1961-1972). We would likely have achieved the goals. *All figures inflation adjusted
- scottlocklin 12y ago
  People knew how to land on the moon decades before it happened; people were writing engineering studies on it in the 1940s. The missing pieces were obvious "fill in the blanks" that required no great breakthroughs, though it certainly resulted in many breakthroughs. No such thing as "fill in the blank" engineering to be done to make AGI, Fusion or extreme longevity happen. Nobody knows how to do these things even in principle. Nobody has the slightest clue how to do these things. While we should try; the idea that throwing large amounts of money at such things will do anything but employ large numbers of smart people on something that may be a futile exercise is preposterous. As for $29 billion on Fusion research since 1954: complete and total bullshit. ITER has already cost $20 billion: and that's one project. NIF is pushing $6-7 billion by now; it's predecessor, NOVA was several billion: that's already more than your allegations of a $29billion total spent on fusion research. In reality, we've spent well over a hundred billion on this topic; and it's about as close to fruition now as it was in the 1950s, because our entrenched bureaucracies keep doing the same stupid things. That is the problem with fanboys who want science fiction things that may never exist: you can't count. Counting is important.
Houshalter 12y ago
Well this is far from clear. There are not that many people working on AGI, Fusion has always been vastly underfunded from what they estimated it would take (http://i.imgur.com/sjH5r.jpg http://i.imgur.com/sjH5r.jpg), and life extension research is pathetically underfunded as well. Spinoff technologies are great, but I bet that any scientific or engineering venture you throw money at will also produce spin off technologies. E.g. AI research makes it's way to hundreds of different industries. Personally think it's more wise to spread money over many different fields and projects rather than giant mega projects.

AndrewKemendo 12y ago

Nobody knew how to land on the moon or control nuclear fission either... We have already thrown money at these problems Not even close. There is no "Manhattan Project" for any of those like there was for the space race/nuclear bomb. If the same amount of resources were put toward AGI ($<100M* since 1956) or Fusion ($29B* since 1954) as was put toward just the apollo program alone ($~110B* from 1961-1972). We would likely have achieved the goals. *All figures inflation adjusted

scottlocklin 12y ago
People knew how to land on the moon decades before it happened; people were writing engineering studies on it in the 1940s. The missing pieces were obvious "fill in the blanks" that required no great breakthroughs, though it certainly resulted in many breakthroughs. No such thing as "fill in the blank" engineering to be done to make AGI, Fusion or extreme longevity happen. Nobody knows how to do these things even in principle. Nobody has the slightest clue how to do these things. While we should try; the idea that throwing large amounts of money at such things will do anything but employ large numbers of smart people on something that may be a futile exercise is preposterous. As for $29 billion on Fusion research since 1954: complete and total bullshit. ITER has already cost $20 billion: and that's one project. NIF is pushing $6-7 billion by now; it's predecessor, NOVA was several billion: that's already more than your allegations of a $29billion total spent on fusion research. In reality, we've spent well over a hundred billion on this topic; and it's about as close to fruition now as it was in the 1950s, because our entrenched bureaucracies keep doing the same stupid things. That is the problem with fanboys who want science fiction things that may never exist: you can't count. Counting is important.

Houshalter 12y ago

Well this is far from clear. There are not that many people working on AGI, Fusion has always been vastly underfunded from what they estimated it would take (http://i.imgur.com/sjH5r.jpg http://i.imgur.com/sjH5r.jpg), and life extension research is pathetically underfunded as well. Spinoff technologies are great, but I bet that any scientific or engineering venture you throw money at will also produce spin off technologies. E.g. AI research makes it's way to hundreds of different industries. Personally think it's more wise to spread money over many different fields and projects rather than giant mega projects.