[tg180]

> But the current structure of defense funding makes this nearly impossible. VC-backed defense startups aren't the answer either. They're making the same mistakes - small compute, off-the-shelf models, requiring relocation from experienced 40+ year old scientists who won't move. They're essentially just spending the money the government can't, without solving the fundamental issues.

Have you tried to express your perplexities to one of the DARPA PMs?

Theoretically, a significant part of their work should precisely consist of receiving feedback on the mistakes made in order to iterate more quickly toward effective solutions.

[ipunchghosts]

Yes. The problem is darpa PMs only have a 4 year window. They also have a limited budget of about 80 million. They also have to pitch a program to get hired into darpa and then further have to get buy in from darpa brass to move ahead with thier portfolio.

Moreover, darpa is not the airforce, army, navy, ect. Just because darpa makes the widget doesn't mean anyone has to use it. Also working for darpa is a difficult as they micromanage thier PIs and you have to constantly show progress (even bi weekly) which isn't conducive to research.

My experience has been that Darpa has a romanticized role outside of those who have actually worked for darpa.

As a researcher you are not incentived to tell darpa the truth because if they are not happy with it, they won't give you any money which is already hard to come by.

Darpa PMs are often young, have few publications and are new to the government and have romanticized ideas about what they think they can accomplish.