| ▲ | jdw64 16 hours ago | |||||||
The term 'overhauling' is typically used as a weapon in framing battles. It is usually employed by an emerging faction, or a group dissatisfied with the existing establishment, to frame their opponents as evil. The logic is truly absurd. They argue that investments have surged while results have diminished. This is a given. Just like a gold mine, gold is easily extracted at first, but the deeper you dig, the more expensive extraction becomes. The article dismisses things like "spending half their time on paperwork" as mere bureaucracy, but these are necessary procedures to ensure the transparent execution of public funds. Shifting power and capital from universities to private AI companies effectively dismantles this public oversight. Transitioning to a "new initiative" is simply a move to siphon academic power and prestige toward their own agenda. In reality, the exodus of scientists to the private AI industry leaves immense room for scientific neutrality to be compromised. Of course, it is undeniable that inefficiencies and flawed practices do exist in certain areas of academia. Furthermore, once researchers enter the corporate world, they are bound by NDAs. The trajectory of science then becomes subordinated to the creation of short-term market value, rather than the pursuit of truth or long-term value generation. History has clearly shown the consequences of eating your seed corn just because you are hungry. I do not understand why they are proceeding this way. | ||||||||
| ▲ | ineedaj0b 15 hours ago | parent [-] | |||||||
Are you versed in the history of corporations and US government during WW2? | ||||||||
| ||||||||