Benjamin, Do you have any success stories of such research funding in the last 20 years? Something that resulted in useful accomplishments.
Saturday, November 17, 2007, 11:33:35 AM, you wrote: > On Nov 17, 2007 1:08 PM, Dennis Gorelik <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Jiri, > Give $1 for the research to who? > Research team can easily eat millions $$$ without producing any useful > results. > If you just randomly pick researchers for investment, your chances to > get any useful outcome from the project is close to zero. > The best investing practise is to invest only into such teams that > produced working prototype already. > Dennis, > What you are advocating is to fund Development but not Research. > I think the history of science in the last century shows that funding > Research as well as Development can be extremely valuable. > Of course, each individual Research team has only a small chance > of success if viewed from the big-picture perspective; but the $300M/year > annual funding that was posited could fund a lot of AGI Research teams. > Let's say it was used to fund 300 research teams at a rate of $1M/year > per team. The odds are high that more than one of these teams would produce > breakthrough discoveries within a 5-10 year period, even though betting > on any individual team would be a long-shot. > The US Research funding establishment is doing a good job of funding > many sorts of research, but not AGI or life-extension. > -- Ben > This list is sponsored by AGIRI: http://www.agiri.org/email > To unsubscribe or change your options, please go to: > http://v2.listbox.com/member/? ----- This list is sponsored by AGIRI: http://www.agiri.org/email To unsubscribe or change your options, please go to: http://v2.listbox.com/member/?member_id=8660244&id_secret=66309286-3454ec
