> The DARPA grand challenges have bootstrapped:

I have a contrarian opinion about the impact of DARPA and related programs (ARPA-e especially). To some extent, there is a confusion of cause and effect. DARPA is good at identifying possible nascent technologies and funding them. They then have a flag planted, and can claim "we helped invent X", which is hard to disprove. But was it because of DARPA involvement, or was DARPA merely there at the right time? They have definitely funded plenty of projects that go nowhere.

ARPA-e makes this strategy explicit. They'll give money to an up-and-coming startup between rounds and then claim all later investment as "follow-on funding". They then report "follow-on funding" as a success metric to congress, which seems easy to game. ARPA-e has been around for over 10 years and I don't think they can point to anything coming out of the program as a legitimate game changer.

I do think the applied research programs do some good and has some impact, mostly as a way to convene the broader technology community. But for the most part I would rather have the government focus on funding basic research instead of applied research.

What's the difference between "helping invent X" and "identifying possible nascent technologies and funding them"?

Nascent technologies aren't a fait accompli. Without funding, something expensive like a launch system isn't going to get anywhere no matter how clever an idea someone has on paper.

At least in the self-driving car case, it's hard to say they didn't have a big impact. For universities to allow, fund, and support students to form engineering student teams, there usually needs to be some kind of official competition that the team can compete in. In this case, those university teams made major progress on what was at the time seen as an intractable problem. Google and its ilk then headhunted all of the students in the top performing teams to launch their self-driving car division, and now here we are.

There is a feedback loop here. They help fund existing ideas, get more people/companies involved, raise awareness on certain problems, and motivate more participants to do relevant research.

So do they "invent"? ...well that's a semantic argument. The point is they absolutely help make things happen.

My question is... do they really? They happen to be around when tech moves, but would it have moved without them? It's a historical counterfactual, and hard to argue about. I'm skeptical and I'm more skeptical of ARPA-e.

How are they less relevant? Well it's a bit left-field but I believe part of the reason why the political climate has become more pro-trust within the last twenty years is that international tech dominance is a national security boon. DARPA is not going to be asked to create ground-breaking tech in search, tracking, social media, tech generally, because the tech giants are already providing more than defense strategists could possibly have hoped for, on the world stage.

So instead we have these contests, the insights of which are handed out to existing companies to help them make incremental improvements. But the Onion browser isn't going to be rolled out to secure political autonomy throughout the world, or small business competitiveness because the data tracking is too valuable for surveillance programs. The national security/intel value of big tech companies has given those companies so much good will that govt officials/politicians have been unwilling to consider innovations that would undermine them.

I’m not arguing applications I’m arguing innovation. They do the initial research and then companies monetize .