FLF is launching an 'incubator fellowship' on AI for human reasoning to help talented researchers and builders start working on AI tools for coordination and epistemics. Participants will scope out and work on pilot projects in this area, with discussion and guidance from experts working in related fields. FLF will provide fellows with a $25k–$50k stipend, the opportunity to work in a shared office in the SF Bay Area, and other support.
There are a lot of interesting startups right now in the mobile health space, but it is a significantly more difficult space to operate in. It takes years to get FDA approval for new medical devices, the healthcare industry is beholden to several large industry players, and the culture of medicine is resistant to rapid innovation. I understand and echo your frustration that silicon valley often only pays lip service to 'dangerously ambitious ideas', but there are also real reasons why people don't operate in these difficult business environments.
Have to say, I didn't really see any actual point being made by this author. Maybe its just a misleading headline, but as far as I could tell his argument boiled down to 1.) We can't let the Estonians beat us in the election technology race 2.) We live in the future, its time our election system was futuristic. The rest is just quotes from security experts about why he's wrong.
You raise the interesting point of 'Great Projects'. I'm sympathetic with the desire for a new space program, but I think it has less to do with a lack of vision and more to do with competing visions. NASA has a harder time raising money in the government because they have to compete against a multitude of other causes and agencies, who rightly point out that money put towards a trip to mars is money thats not going to social welfare programs, infrastructure, or other, more tangible goods. We went to the moon because there was an overwhelming desire to 'beat' the soviets; if a similar desire competitor existed today, I imagine a similar effort.
As for winning WWII, its the same basic point that at that time there was an obvious single good to be pursued, winning the war, whereas now there are many different goods. This isn't the fault of our elites or our efficiency, it just points to the fact that we live in a pluralistic society. It would be better to embrace that, and devolve more power to civil society, than to continue to pine for elites who can overcome opposition.
I would love to know by what metric 1950s & 60s elites were 'better'. Brook's seems to be ignoring the fact that elites in these times were more effective because they could ignore other interest groups. It's easy to get a highway built when you can override the largely poor or minority groups who live in these areas (i.e. Robert Moses). Also the widespread lack of transparency meant that the crimes of elites were far less apparent, and so popular conception is that they were a far more 'honorable' bunch. I don't deny that there is a lot wrong with the ruling class today, but that problem emerges from our institutions, and the concentration of power and lack of checks/balances, not because of some mythic, WASPy noblesse oblige that no longer exists.
Excellent recommendations. I stumbled upon LessWrong.com a couple of months ago and its been a great source of interesting and useful material on practicing rationality and integrating it into everyday life.