My interpretation of the joke is that the Szilard is accusing the NSF of effectively slowing down science, the opposite of their claimed intention. Personally I have found that the types of scientists who end up sitting in grant-giving chairs are not the most productive and energetic minds, who tend to avoid such positions. Still funny though.
The NSF was founded in 1950, two years after this story was published. The story was published when people were discussing founding the NSF.
The point about incouraging safe over innovative research is on spot though. Although the main culprits are not granting agencies but tying researcher careers to the number of peer reviewed papers imo. The main problem with the granting system is the amount of time wasted in writing grant applications.
I don't think it would work to slow down AI capabilities progress. The reason is that AI capabilities translate into money in a way that's much more direct than "science" writ large--they're a lot closer to engineering.
Put differently, if it could have worked (and before GPT-2 and the surrounding hype, I might have believed it) it's too late now.
It might depend on whether or not radically new paradigms are needed to get to true AGI or whether just scaling up the existing tech is enough.
If scaling up the existing tech isn't enough such a project could focus all the money on transformers and their applications while shutting down the pursuit of radically new paradigms.
That was quite different though (spoiler alert)
A benevolent conspiracy to hide a dangerous scientific discovery by lying about the state of the art and denying resources to anyone whose research might uncover the lie. Ultimately failing because apparently unrelated advances made rediscovering the true result too easy.
I always saw it as a reply to the idea that physicists could have hidden the possibility of an atomic bomb for more than a few years.
It is a nice thought experiment, but I've noticed that many AI researchers are devoted to their labour to the point of being comparable to religious fanaticism (on either camp, really). I don't think a fat pay check will make them stop their research so readily.
lol, I think Jason Crawford was coming at this from the opposite perspective of "this is already happening in lots of places and it's bad", rather than as a how-to manual. (But, I too am interested in it as a how-to manual)
I have quipped that if you really wanted to slow down AI progress, you should create a Federal AI Initiative and give it billions of dollars in funding.
Or: “An old saw says that if the government really wanted to help literacy and reduce addiction in the inner cities, it would form a Department of Drugs and declare a War on Education.” (from Nanofuture by J. Storrs Hall, who also wrote Where Is My Flying Car?)
Yes. We did invite J. Storrs Hall to be a keynote speaker at the LessWrong Community Weekend in Berlin a while ago where his speech was basically the content of the Where Is My Flying Car? book before that was published.
Taking this as a serious proposal:
I always thought Hall's point about nanotech was trivially false. Nanotech research like he wanted it died out in the whole world, but he explains it by US-specific factors. Why didn't research continue elsewhere? Plus, other fields that got large funding in Europe or Japan are alive and thriving. How comes?
That doesn't mean that a government program which sets up bad incentives cannot be worse than useless. It can be quite damaging, but not kill a technologically promising research field worldwide for twenty years.
Leo Szilard—the physicist who first conceived of the nuclear chain reaction and who urged the US to undertake the Manhattan Project—also wrote fiction. His book of short stories, The Voice of the Dolphins, contains a story “The Mark Gable Foundation,” dated 1948, from which I will present to you an excerpt, without comment: