When you can equally reasonably make the opposite argument - that AI is going to open up scientific exploration and contribution to a wider range of participants than ever before - then I think it’s a sign that nobody has any idea what’s going to happen and spending time making either claim is probably pointless until we have more data.
> The scientific literature can be viewed as an "information commons:" an intangible resource that "no one owns<p>Springer would like a word
Admin, maybe merge with submission:
<a href="https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=50187248">https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=50187248</a>
One simple way to understand how this is currently manifesting is the administration's severe, and really unprecedented, defunding of basic science at NSF (likely in unconstitutional defiance of Congress' appropriations to specific NSF directorates). Instead the way the funding has been redirected (by the White House OSTP) is based on the assumption that future knowledge will be exclusively AI (sorry SI) generated, so humans not needed.<p>China, on the other hand, seems to be doubling down on fundamental research, including announcing these changes:<p><a href="https://www.globaltimes.cn/page/202609/1371583.shtml" rel="nofollow">https://www.globaltimes.cn/page/202609/1371583.shtml</a><p>and this: <a href="https://www.scmp.com/news/china/science/article/3368750/china-offers-15-year-research-grants-worlds-brightest-young-scientists" rel="nofollow">https://www.scmp.com/news/china/science/article/3368750/chin...</a>
I think this is completely unrelated.<p>This administration thinks science is 'woke' because it says things that disagree with him. Many of these funding cuts were explicitly politically motivated, e.g. they specifically targeted research about diversity, gender, or vaccines.<p>It's not about AI, it's about removing funding from liberal causes and giving it to conservative causes.
Unfortunately it is entirely related. The initial wave of cancelations were about those topics, but the more structural thing they are attempting now is to focus funds on tool development for AI models as opposed to human capital development as NSF does.
No it is about AI too. Trump et al want there to be no dispensing of federal grants to academics in the future. They want the government to instead cut checks directly to xAI et al who will do all our research for us in the future and will for certain represent our best interests and not those of shareholders exclusively.
If AI didn't exist, he'd find some other excuse to do the exact same thing.<p>The real reason for this is that Elon Musk is a conservative megadonor, while academics are vocally opposed to Trump. He takes from his enemies and gives to his friends; that's how he operates.
> Instead the way the funding has been redirected (by the White House OSTP) is based on the assumption that future knowledge will be exclusively AI (sorry SI) generated, so humans not needed.<p>Can you go into more detail about that? My impression is the real reason the Trump administration has defunded basic science (and so much else) is an unholy combination of "government bad" libertarianism and the belief the funding was going to their ideological opponents.<p>I feel that and use of AI to justify the redirection is most likely post-hoc.
Going by the public announcements, the original plan was to cut science funding but once Congress said "no," the backup plan became directing it towards non - human - scientist items like facilities operations and the Genesis program.
This is not that difficult. It's just like what happened to physical fitness/obesity after the invention of the car. Go look at countries that do it reasonably well (ie not the US). Copy exactly what they do, wholesale.<p><a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KPUlgSRn6e0" rel="nofollow">https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KPUlgSRn6e0</a> [Not Just Bikes]