genesis mission (us government)

Hi, thank you for coming to this meeting. I have a Patreon and I mentioned that because some of the tiers suggest topics and vote on topics. And I worry that some of the voters, high voters, thought that they were voting for the topic Genesis mission with reference to Star Trek 2: The Wrath of Khan. — I shall leave you as you left me. And I'm so sorry, but in November of 2025, Donald Trump, President of the United States, signed an executive order launching something called the Genesis Mission. So that's this. In every age, humanity invents new ways to see further. The telescope let us glimpse the stars. The microscope revealed the worlds within us. For centuries, thinkers like Linets, Shannon, and Turing dreamed of making all knowledge computable. But today, knowledge grows faster than our ability to understand it. Trillions of data points, a universe of information. So, I struggle when talking about AI to just not repeat this whole hourong video. So, we're going to try to speedrun it. Okay. Scientists use novel and interesting machine learning tools. I realize I have lost this battle forever, but these machine learning tools are not artificial intelligence. And yet, we're all just deciding to call it artificial intelligence. Does AI exist? No, but like [ __ ] me, right? Anytime you have a whole bunch of data, it makes sense to develop some sort of computer algorithm to sort through that data, reduce that data, maybe apply like analysis tools to that data because you can't look at all of it. There's too much data. This style of data reduction of data analysis has been going on for like two or three decades, but it's really accelerated in recent years. A classic example is astronomy. You have your telescope, you point it at like I don't know half a million galaxies. You cannot physically with your eyes catalog and analyze half a million images. And they're not just images. They're usually like data cubes. So you'll have like a photo in whatever wavelength you're looking at, X-ray, radio, whatever. You would have maybe spectra information. You would maybe have velocity information and you just can't you can't that's too much data. You take a small subset of the data and you analyze it the classical way and then you train an algorithm on that small subset and then you like you expand you close the model once you have it trained the way you want it and you just throw it at the big giant hunk of data and like it works beautifully. AI tools, that's what we're calling them, I guess, are really novel and interesting and useful in science. But when you hear scientists use AI, it's not AI, but also I would hate for you to associate that with an LLM, which is also a machine learning tool, but like scientists are not shoving their data into chat GPT and being like analyze this data. I mean, some of them are. That's pretty [ __ ] embarrassing. Anyway, I do have this worry. I have this worry that someone hears, "Scientists use AI tools all the time and they're great. " And they interpret that as like, "Oh, if I want to be a scientist, I should invest in using an LLM and learning how to be a prompt engineer. " No, please don't. Stop using those. Those are algorithms that are trained to just keep your eyeballs on and also flatter your every move and then kind of tell you to kill yourself and others. Like, that's what they're good at. You don't need to do that. That's not what machine learning in science is. Anyway, I do think the ubiquity of AI tools in science is like a thing that will happen. It's the one good thing we will get out of this AI bubble. There's just so much data. Of course, we will use this very good tool to analyze the data. Anyway, I like science. I like AI tools in science. I think the people who know how to use them and understand the field of research they're in and use them appropriately can use them to do better, stronger, better, faster science, right? So, this should be a good thing, right? No, it's not. I'm sorry. This is a video about how the thing is bad.

So the Genesis mission is presented by the White House press office and also a lot of media and science institution as like this big giant beautiful project that will transform science in America. Not only like just shoving AI into every single piece of it, but also restructuring the way science is performed in America, who gets to do it, where it gets done, who gets funding for it, etc. the media and a lot of scientific institutions and honestly like a lot of scientists have looked at this genesis mission and been like, "Wow, oh my god, you guys. Finally, science policy. This is the day that Trump became president. Wow, the adults are in charge. Science is definitely back on the menu, boys. " And I just Let me ask you in the form of a rhetorical question. If the Trump regime was interested in funding science and seeing Americans benefit from the results of those science, would they have cut NSF funding, cut NASA funding, cut NIH funding, illegally arrest, detain, and deport people who are working in science labs across the United States, fire the entire NSF board, nominate a Fox News contributor to be the surgeon general, and then nominate an antivaxer without a medical license, and then try again with a separate different Fox News presenter instead of, you know, a respected surgeon. or doctor. This whole thing, there's this whole thing. Does this look like a man who understands science? There's more. And like we could just go on all day and all day based on what we just covered. Do you trust anything science related in any way at all coming out of this administration? I mean, no. Like, I don't really think we even need to go further. We don't need to dedicate any time to this at all. Like, obviously, this is some sort of scam. The question is, what sort of scam is it? But, you know, for documentation purposes, let's go further. I really don't think you need to do more than watch the two-minute ad on this website to realize these people have no understanding of science or science's role in technological innovation to even suspect that they know what they're doing. So, here we have a list of 26 national priorities that have been identified. And that's just 26 things, you guys. Step one, identify the priorities. Step two, solve solutions. Like, they did it. They're already halfway done. I'm just kidding. I don't think identifying 26 national priorities is the problem. The issue is, of course, that this whole document was written by some garbage LLM chat box, and I spent way more time reading it than anyone involved in the creation of this document spent writing it. Like, it's just a nonsense list. Why not do some examples? Page 17. Predicting US water for energy. Water availability is essential for expanding production and utilization of energy as well as the nation's health and security. However, there are fundamental scientific gaps in our understanding of terrestrial and atmospheric systems that limit our ability to predict water resources, especially on the time scale of weeks to years. And like this is true, sure, but do you think the Trump administration actually cares about climate modeling? because they cut Noah's funding. They canled their climate change research and called it woke garbage. Like the whole thing got doed. Like if they actually cared about AI modeling of climate and climate disasters, especially for national security, why would they specifically fire all the people who, you know, were using AI to model climate and climate disasters for national security? Like this whole team already existed and they crushed it. They destroyed it. They killed it. They ended it. So why are they pretending that suddenly they care about this? And honestly, this is how every single one of these 26 things reads. Accelerating delivery of fusion energy. And it's just like challenge fusion is hard. If we had it, that'd be good. AI solution, digital twins, data, harness, framework, predictive AI, justification, fusion would be good. Impact, I know someone watching this is going to be like, Angela is so stupid. She's just mocking Fusion. She doesn't understand how good it would be and how good the energy would be. And like, yeah, I do. Your malicious optimism will kill us all. To look at this and be like, "Wow, they're going to do fusion and they're going to deliver it via the grid is idiotic. " That's not what this is. Fusion as a viable energy resource is not on the horizon. And what they are suggesting in this document is that they need scientists to develop AI tools to make a plan on how to deliver fusion energy via the existing electrical grid. That is that makes no sense. That is not a thing we can do. It would be like if the US government sent out a call for proposals on building a docking station for the moon base. We don't have a moon base. It's a little premature to get the captains of industry involved. You know, it doesn't make sense to call for a proposal on acceleration of fusion energy delivery when we do not have fusion energy to deliver. It's nonsense. It is an economically unusable form of energy at the moment. Why would we focus on delivery of this unusable thing? It makes so no sense. Speaking of delivery, have I mentioned the timelines of these proposals? Wait, PS, would a regime actually interested in delivering energy to their constituents in like a cheap, safe, easy manner, have cut all of the research that goes into renewable energy? Would they have destroyed all the renewable energy subsidies that had been put in place by the previous administration, had been lowering the cost of energy across the nation? Would they have just canceled that? Would they have started a senseless war in Iran, which not only causing massive deaths that are now on all of our conscious as Americans, but also raising the price of gas to like $6 a gallon? Would they have done that? I'm supposed to believe that this administration cares about energy? Sure. Anyway, have I mentioned the timelines of these proposals?

So, the Genesis mission was announced by executive order. November 2025, midmarch 2026. Call for proposal due end of April 2026. Six weeks. Six weeks to write a proposal for a new funding opportunity you've never heard about. Fantastic. Do they have the website prepared with documentation on how they want the proposals written for the initiative? No. Do they have an example proposal? Do they have the requirements listed? Do they have emails for each of the 26 things for the specific funding officer that you can contact? No, they have a generic email genesis doe. gov. Just send all your [ __ ] there and then they will make an FAQ page and just post non responses to all of that. That's what they have. 6 weeks to write a proposal. You have no information. Go. Anyway, I watched a bunch of these webinars. Why does the US government host their webinars on privated YouTube videos? That's weird, right? Isn't that weird? Like surely they have their own website. Why not do that? Why would you hope that YouTube just keeps these up for you? That's weird. I just find that weird. Anyway, on these webinars, it's people just reading to you a PowerPoint that was obviously made by some chat box by whatever lackey works at the DOE. The second thing, the second part of this thing, in addition to building out this platform to enable all of us to do our work better, it has no information on it. The people hosting the webinars are like, "Yeah, if anything's conflicting with the website, I would trust the website and maybe ask for guidance. — Read the RFA in its completeness. Um, nothing that we say should be taken as uh instead of that um uh instead of what you see, it's — because they don't know, they don't understand. They don't have any concept of what the proposals are actually supposed to look like. and the scientists are freaking out in the comments. Not in the comments of the video, Zoom call asking questions and stuff. Get to some of those questions. As you know, um there'll be a lot of them, so we likely won't get to all of them. So, there's a lot of questions. Um I see that some of you have already started populating the Q& A section. — 400 plus questions, so we'll try to get through. Um — we've been getting a lot of questions about, well, how do I um how do I actually uh do this? The reason the scientists are so panicked in the Zoom call trying to scrap together whatever they can to hopefully submit a correct proposal and not get it automatically rejected because they didn't include something they needed because there's no documentation is the way I found out about the Genesis mission when I got forwarded a bunch of emails from the government where the government was basically informing these scientists who are currently on government grants like hey if you ever want to do fundamental nuclear physics research again you are only going to be allowed to be funded through this project. All of your NSF funding for current proposals that you have submitted will be rejected. The only way for your lab to continue, for your life's work graduate students to continue to eat, is if you successfully make a proposal for this because the Genesis is actually a restructuring of how science is done in America. It's a restructuring of who's allowed to do what and where. And if you look at these 26 projects, the things they're saying this is now the only place in America to get government funding for these things, they are so broad. It's basically all of fundamental physics research, all of nuclear particle theory, all of like weather modeling, all of nuclear engineering, just so many things. All of which they are now saying NSF, DOE, NIST, none of these funding institutions will fund you in any other way than under the Genesis mission with an AIdriven approach to delivering products. They're suggesting fundamental physics research will only be done with the intention of delivering AI products. Basically saying, hey, you do nuclear science theory. The only way you will ever be able to do that ever in America ever again is to write this grant in 6 weeks and hope it gets approved. Shove some AI into it because otherwise your lap's closed. So obviously these people are panicking realizing all of the NSF grants that they spent months writing and have already submitted will never be approved and they have six weeks to write this. How do you write a proposal for this? Realizing quantum systems for discovery challenge. Quantum is good AI solution. Quantum has data justification. I guess the NSF doesn't exist. So AI quantum quantum impact accelerated study of quantum. Fantastic. Every single piece of quantum research is being funded by the American government is now being shut or funneled into AIdriven solutions for products. That's good. How do you write a proposal in six weeks for a new initiative you know nothing about? You scramble. You read every document you can find on the website. You realize all of it is LLM chatbox gobbledegook and then you realize, oh my god, there is no peer review on this. — We will be um leveraging domain experts. So if you are a chemist um you're putting forward a chemistry proposal, uh expect that there will be some chemists and adjacent folks that are reading your proposal as well as folks that are AI experts um that will be reviewing your project and your proposal. Um and uh we'll be leveraging both f both types of people for the reviews. Um and uh um — how do you write a proposal knowing you are catering to an LLM hoping that it picks you? How do you do that? That's not how science is done. That's not science. I don't know what it is. um and to take advantage again of this unique moment that we find ourselves in computing to not do something that is incremental but that is um that is groundbreaking and changing. — Uh the goal is to double the productivity and impact of American science and engineering within a decade. — Um and um again I know that you don't yet know what we are looking for in the phase 2 application specifically that will hopefully be coming really soon. and also tell us how you want us to evaluate you. This is which is super important because we don't exactly know how to evaluate AI advantage. — This is a failing nations approach to science. Like this literally does not make sense to do. If this was in a book as like a fictional description of how fascism destroys science, it would be unbelievable. It's disgusting. It's bonkers. It makes no sense. And yet, you know, somebody go to Argon's website.

So, Argon's a national lab in Illinois. If you look at the website, they're celebrating 80 years, but that little hyphen makes it look like Argon died. Like, it's over. Argon has closed. It lasted 80 years. And like, well, look at this. Look at this page. So, this is a press release. I guess it's like an advertisement on how Argon will contribute to the Genesis mission by developing teams and then they just have this list like it's just a list describing a very huge problem saying as if by magic Argon's team will AI it will save billions like that this whole list is just that accelerating scientific discovery through AIdriven code development. This model team will create an AIdriven code-development ecosystem to adapt and optimize flagship DOE applications, shortening the time from scientific concept to validated simulation. We will develop a thing that shortens the time scale. Wow. Who is this for? Like is this for a lay audience? Because like you're not describing what you're actually going to do. Scientists will read that and realize it says absolutely nothing. It's embarrassing that this is on your web page. I wonder who wrote it. Like who wrote this and slapped this up? Who is it for? What is the intended audience of just a list of the magic you're going to do with the AI Genesis mission? Critical minerals and materials to unlock supply. This model team will help secure the domestic supply chain of critical minerals and materials by revolutionizing their discovery, extraction, and processing using an AIdriven engine that acts as a strategic guide for the entire supply chain. The effort will produce a dynamic digital map of the process from mining to market. Like, where do you get that data set? How do you have a data set that shows you where minerals yet undiscovered in American soil are? Like what do you mean? Like how are you going to go about doing this? How do you get that information from an AI? If you don't have the input data, you can't just magically develop an AI to solve it. Like what's what what's the action you are going to take to do this? What is this? Again, who is the audience for this? Like mineral guys, like big mineral fans. They're going to be like, "Whoa, guys. Argon says they're going to use AI to find every mineral in America. " They're going to do that. Prometheus. I bet that's a really stupid acronym for something. That's a long That's too long to be an acronym. I know you guys have fun. Physicists love to do an acronym. You follow your heart. Whatever. A revolution in design and operation of nuclear power plant. This model team will revolutionize nuclear fision energy by using AI to design, manufacture, and operate reactors with minimal intervention in a firstofits-kind public private partnership. The effort will deliver a digital platform for quickly deploying advanced nuclear systems at scale, saving billions per gigawatt, providing reliable power, and establishing US leadership in the next generation of energy. Okay, two things. One, if this administration actually cared about delivering energy to its constituents, would it invest money in infrastructure in securing and rebuilding the failing power grid that causes like hundreds of Americans to die each year whenever there's like a big storm or something? Or AI power, which makes more sense. Anyway, I really have to question the phrasing of AI will manufacture nuclear reactors. What do you think that word means? AI doesn't have hands. What who wrote this? Like what do you mean AI will manufacture nuclear reactors? Why is this on your website as a capability? like as a thing that you are saying Argon can do. It can use AI to manufacture nuclear reactors to manufacture. I'm sure Argon National Lab has some sort of marketing or like press department with like three people and one of them told their chat box to write this and they just slapped it on the website and no one has ever looked at it before. I just who wrote this? Who approved it? Like why? What is the intended audience? Like who tasked someone with writing this? Like what is this for? Because I mean it's just that it kind of seems like nonsense. It's just it's literally like we took the 26 things and our team will do magic and save billions. Like that's how these all read. Just like replace AI with magic. And it's like well how exactly are you going to do that? And why are you putting it up in this format? Like just as a sentence we will manufacture nuclear reactor power plants with AI. What does that mean? Like I guess if you want to be super generous, maybe they're saying that they will create an AI model that is trained on like existing nuclear power plants and they will provide it all the data from those and maybe they will run some numerical simulations and the AI will come up with a new power plant design and then of course structural engineers and nuclear engineers will look at the plans and do some work on the feasibility. But like how is the AI going to manufacture these plants? I mean, I guess you could have a chatbox AI agent act as a secretary and that AI agent could like arrange a time when the contractors could show up. But AI doesn't have hands. It can't manufacture anything. Is having an AI agent scheduling contractors what you think people are reading into when you say we have an AI that will manufacture nuclear fision reactors? Because that's not what I think you're trying to convey. It kind of feels like a lie. Hang on. Angela is not suggesting that Argon National Lab is lying about their capabilities. Angela is just confused by what's on this page. So, it feels like it's lying. And it does feel a little bit like lying, unless of course you're incredibly generous in the way you interpret each sentence. But saying AI to save billions seems like a pretty tractable statement that you could perhaps investigate in like three or four years to see if that factually happened. I just it feels like lies. That doesn't mean that it is. America's AI revolution transforms scientific discovery at the speed of light. This model team will speed breakthroughs in micro electronics, medicine, advanced manufacturing, and energy security by transforming the world's top scientific facilities into intotelligent self-driving engines of discovery. You will do that. You will. You are saying that at the speed of light factually you will you Argon National Lab will deliver breakthroughs in micro electronics medicine and advanced manufacturing at the speed of light like that's something you say you will do you will be doing that is what you are going to do so if someone were to check in like seven years we could see those at the speed of light breakthroughs like that's what you're suggesting I it's just that like because like maybe it feels like super hyperbolic like as if as a scientific institution you've just decided to say whatever get some funding and tide yourself over until a more scientifically literate regime is in charge and you can go back to doing science because it kind of feels like that like a little bit that's how it reads to me personally and in doing this you're just destroying your scientific credibility you know I mean at the speed of light okay let's compare Argon's statements on the Genesis mission and their role in it to Arnold's you know. Oh, I'm so worried a baby physicist is going to watch me say Ornal and think it's actually pronounced that way. It's Oakidge National Lab and they always put O R NL. Um, but people just call it Oakidge. I think it's funny to say oral. Research highlights. Explore how ONL is applying its unique strengths as part of the Genesis mission to address critical national challenges across energy security and advanced science. Through the integration of ONL's computing facilities, data, and experimental capabilities, the laboratory is accelerating discovery and real world impact. Okay, that seems like a sentence that's true. That seems like they're not saving billions and revolutionizing science. They're helping with the Genesis mission. That seems like a normal thing to say. And then if you look at their little graphic, AIdriven research promises to accelerate scientific productivity. It sure does. Let's read. So it says, "Generate hypotheses, design experiments, conduct experiments across labs, analyze results in real time with AI, theory, simulation. " You see how they did that there? AI is not a magic wizard that's solving all of Oakidge's problems. No, no. It's one of the many tools they use to approach big scientific problems. I just This is so much better. We have to be kind. to be fair. Let's click dive deeper, right, to check it out. So, this one says real-time AI based water intelligence for US energy systems. So, they're saying they would get a global data set of real-time water information and they would write an AI algorithm that studies how that will flow. Okay, so your input is water data and then they will write that algorithm to work on the DOE's computers as a real time AI interpreter of what the weather is going to do or how water is going to flow on the earth and then the output will be given in real time. So they are saying hey we have a data set and we can get that data set in real time. We will write an algorithm to work with that specific data set. We will give it to the DOE on their computers and they can get real-time predictions out of it. That just seems like a very achievable goal. It seems like a scientific solution to a problem. It doesn't sound like we will revolutionize all of medicine at the speed of light. Right. Anyway, I wanted to make fun of the text on Oregon National Labs website so much that I kind of glossed over a really important point. The Trump regime is using the Genesis mission to redistribute already allocated funds that are supposed to go towards science and saying, "Well, now you have to do it this way. We've taken it away from the NSF. NIS. Now it has to go through us and you have to do your AI component. "

They have literally cancelled NSF's ability to distribute the funds that have already been allocated to the NSF by the budget by Congress and being like, "Well, no, now we're going to do it this way. " They have fired the entire staff of the NSF. Science proposals in America will no longer be peer-reviewed by actual scientists who understand what is possible and what is feasible and what is just hype will save billions of dollars at the speed of light garbage. Right? Scientists are freaking out about this because fundamental science research does not have a product turnaround which the Genesis mission is requiring. You need a complete finished usable AI product. That's not how science works. That's not how you could ever get science done. This executive order along with all the funding cuts, most of them illegal by the way because Congress does the budget, has very successfully just suspended science research in America. All the research that is done into basic fundamental science whose applications are unknowable and unpredictable has been replaced. It's been replaced with shortterm monetizable government approved products. This is just the antithesis of science. This is not how science is done. And the media whitewashing this as like finally we see what Trump's science policy is. It's the genesis mission is criminal journalistic malpractice. to suggest that this is actually a science mission is a lie. It's disgusting and you should be embarrassed that you've done that. Here, here are some pictures of the journalism. This is not a science policy. This is the destruction of science. And I'm telling you, it is clear from anyone who watches the two-minute video at the start. This is obviously not a science mission. We all know that. We don't have to sit here and pretend that like, wow, look at his approach. Let's critique his approach to science. It's like it's not an approach to science. I feel like a lot of scientists are wasting their time critiquing the Genesis mission. Like, oh, you should have given us more than 6 weeks. You should have been more clear with like what the proposal had to look like. And it's just like the fact that this was set up so stupidly in my opinion is malicious and purposeful. The Trump regime has destroyed science funding in America. And then they propped this up and they're like, "No, we didn't. See, we have the Genesis mission. " And then they made it impossible to apply for funding, impossible to understand what they want and also impossible to deliver what they are asked. Okay? And that is on purpose in my opinion. You destroy funding. You create up this project and then when all the scientists at universities and national lab failed to deliver, you're like, see, why were we wasting I've saved so much money by killing science because they don't know what they're doing anyway. That is on purpose. And I've talked to a bunch of scientists about this and most of them disagree with me. Most of them say like he's not that smart or whoever is orchestrating his whole regime isn't that smart and this is just a stupid person not understanding what science is. Like they're just all stupid. And I would say why not both? But there's um there's Hanland's razor, right? Like never attribute malice to what you could attribute to stupidity. But like at this scale, at this level of power, doesn't matter if you're stupid cuz the consequences of your actions are still your fault. It doesn't matter if you're stupid or you're evil. You are still to blame. I guess like if the results look the same, whether you did something because you're evil or so completely stupid and the devastating results are like it's just equally actionable and disqualifying, right? I have yet to mention a teeny tiny little detail about the Genesis mission which is the corporate sponsor.

What we are trying to do in this RFA is build teams. — Collaborative applications are strongly encouraged. — Um one member of the team that is from a for-profit institution, an industrial partner usually and a phase two proposal we're hoping for actually all three. Um there are some topics perhaps where category 3 may not be appropriate and um and we appreciate that. These are this is a teaming um activity. There are requirements on teaming as well as our industrial partners. We are asking for teams and I think we've mentioned this several times. They have these phase one proposals and these phase two proposals and no matter which one you're applying for, you have to have two out of the following three. someone from an academic institution, a national lab or equivalent or an industry sponsor. So the thing about working at a national lab though is that most people who work at a national lab also have an academic affiliation. So like basically every single proposal has to have an industry part. If you go back and watch those Zoom meetings that I told you about, that's most of the questions. Most of the questions are scientists being like, I don't know any of these companies. How do I get like a person to talk to at this company in order to get them to help me? How do I even know what they do? Within six weeks, I'm supposed to identify an industry partner, know what they do so intimately that I can write their work into my grant? That makes no sense. That was most of the questions because like people just working at the random North Dakota University do not have contacts at Oracle AI to get them to help them with their weather modeling. Do you know what I mean? It's an impossible ask. But also, I feel like if you're one of those malicious tech optimists, you'd be like, "Well, actually, collaboration is good, isn't it? " And no, you melon head. That's not what that is. If you look at that requires an industry partner and then you look at the list and you're like, "Collaboration is good. I have a bridge to sell you actually because it's just it's not about collaboration, is it? It's obvious what this is, right? It's obvious. Angela is not suggesting she somehow knows the tech oligarchs provided money to the current regime to sway an election and they are now receiving some sort of kickback or bribe for their efforts. Instead, she is saying that this is what it looks like. But she has no inside knowledge about bribes or kickbacks. See how I took off my glasses and put them back on. I know the language of filmmaking and I know that implies that I'm reading some sort of legal statement to say that I'm not saying anything legally actionable. I'm just saying this kind of looks like a bribe. I don't know if it is, but also I know the language of YouTube and I know that you saw me do this and you know I wear glasses all the time and if I don't mention it, you'll comment about it or whatever. You get it. It's fine. Anyway, I'm not saying it's a bribe, but perhaps it would be nice to take funding that's all already allocated for scientists and then maybe say, "Hey, as a requirement to get this funding, you have to collaborate with an industry partner and give them half of all of your future grants. " And what do you know? This list is just people who also contributed to the ballroom. That's crazy. What about that? Isn't that wild? Like what if I just made it a requirement that perhaps if you ever in the rest of your life to maintain your career wanted to do fundamental physics research, you have to partner with one of these approved lists of people. What about that? Like you know that nice little $200,000 grant you've been getting from the NSF every four years for the past 16 years has been keeping your life's work afloat and grad students fed and trained. I'm telling you that because that's how small these sums are. $200,000 funds like grad students. It funds professorships. It funds research. It helps small economies. And now the Trump regime has decided that half of that money has to go to Jeff Bezos's bunker build. Your tax dollar is like just literally being funneled to Microsoft and Amazon and Oracle AI. Like fantastic. Great. Anyway, that's that's it. I don't know where else to put this part, but a requirement of all these grants is supplying a data set. Like they want all of these AI models to be trained on these giant data sets and then as a requirement of the funding, you have to give your data set to one giant data set. We ask you to bring your scientific data, scientific expertise and data resources to bear on coming together to team to solve some of these challenges. Um data management and sharing plans are not required for the phase one application. They will be required if you are selected and we go through a negotiation process with you. However um you will have to if you are selected come up with a uh an approved data management and sharing plan um before award. How will intellectual property rights be handled for new discoveries or developments arising from this funding opportunity particularly for industry partners and open source contributions? Um right this one is complicated right and I think that uh that we are actually planning on learning um along with you — and that's very stupid for multiple reasons like you don't want to overload your algorithm with spurious data like why would you want to give your AI algorithm like weather data and a human genome and then like terabytes of null LIGO data information why would you like it would just overload the memory of whatever supercomputer you're using. It would be a waste of time. Like that's too much information for an AI to have. It makes no sense to pile it all together. And I know the melon heads from before will try to come up with some stupid reason why actually it makes sense in this crazy example I came up with to use those three data sets. And I just I'm sure your mom thinks you're really smart. Thank you for doing that. That's really important that you did it. Like it makes sense. you had like three different particle colliders and they have different me like experimental setups and they all did like a proton collision to put all that data together. But all the data in all of science just thrown into a pot is stupid. That's a stupid thing to do. It makes no sense. But what's interesting is like I don't know if a company like Open AI decides they want to be an industry partner, they now have access to all that data. All of the data in American science is now in one big pot that a bunch of companies just all have access to. So that's cool. I mean, again, I have no insight into this. I have no inside information. That just seems bad for like national security. Like the whole reason there are so many national labs that are split up in like distance and time and location is because it's really important for national security that information is kept separate, that experiments are kept separate, that the people who know everything are very few and far between. You want people working on a need to know basis. You don't just give everyone all of the information because that leads to spies and espionage and data leaks and stuff. Historically, you know, that's why all of these things are kept separate. So, for an administration to come forward and be like, "No, I think it would be good if like we just had all this information together and in an easy accessible way for like whatever corporation I decide as an industry partner. " It's like a little bit weird. It's just weird that they would do that. Like it's like you want the data to be taken by foreign actors. It's weird. It's weird, right? Weird.

At the start of this video, I played the Genesis mission ad which was obviously made by AI. Why don't people make things anymore? But there was a quote and I just I think we should listen to it again. — But today, knowledge grows faster than our ability to understand it. — This is just not what science is. This was made and if anyone watched it was viewed by people who have no understanding of the goal of science or how it works. Knowledge grows faster than our ability to understand it. Knowledge you don't understand is not a thing. That's not knowledge. If you don't understand it, you don't have it. Knowledge requires understanding. That's how a science works. They are trying to paint this picture of some magical AI creature, like actual AI, you know, that doesn't exist, that somehow is given all the data sets and just solves all of the problems. And that's just not what science is. If we don't understand the science being done, we're not doing science. We don't have any science. There's this book, and I know none of these people have ever read a book, but you could ask your chat box to summarize it for you. Or there's a movie called The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy and they make this giant supercomputer called Deep Thought and over 7 and a half million years it tries to answer this big question. The answer to the ultimate question of life, the universe, and everything. — Yes. Yes, I thought it over quite thoroughly. It is. It's 42. — And that's what we have here. If we built some magical AI, you know, that doesn't exist. By shoving a bunch of data into it, just adding data to your algorithm does not make it better at analyzing data. Read anyone read any book anyway. If we made it and it started spitting out answers that would be useless to our interest in gaining knowledge about science because if we don't understand it, it is useless to us. Gaining knowledge requires understanding. Computers do not do that. AI does not exist.

So, I kept having this devastated imagery in my head of all these scientists just desperately scanning this list of industry partners to try and find anything vaguely related to what they want to do to try and get someone on board so they could, you know, save their career and their livelihoods and their families and keep health insurance on their baby's heads and, you know, feed their grad students and whatever. And I saw Microsoft. And can you imagine how desperate you would have to be to entrust Microsoft with the fate of your scientific career to say, "Oh, you know who could deliver a product that's usable in 120 days? [ __ ] Microsoft. Oh my god. I just Microsoft hasn't delivered a usable product in 20 [ __ ] years. The only reason Microsoft exists is because all of our government is run by who get their emails printed off and haven't used a computer ever. Like I cannot wait for the downfall of Microsoft. And can I even make a prediction? I think Microsoft's downfall will be a thing that made them a bunch of money, which was going against all of academic research and deciding kids need computers in schools. Even though the parents hate it and the kids teachers hate it and they'd all rather have textbooks, what they did was give every kid the shittiest computer ever imaginable. Force them to use this tiny box with ads all over it that spies on them while they're in their room trying to Google the word penis or whatever that like you open up Word and it loads for like 85 seconds while it overheats on your lap. They gave every kid in America the shittiest piece of technology that kid will ever use as like an advertisement. They were like, "Yeah, we'll hook them young on Microsoft. " When all they did was teach every child in America that Microsoft is [ __ ] and you should never use it. I've seen this happen in real time. 10-year-old nephew comes over, asked to borrow a computer to do like a little 10-year-old kid book report or whatever. And he was like, "Where's Word? " And I was like, "I don't have it. " I think I opened up like Libra Libre Office and he was just like, "What is this? " Because it just [ __ ] worked. You drag a picture in, you change the margins however you want. Like Microsoft has doomed themselves by forcing every kid to just suffer through that for like five years. Oh my god. I know that there are Microsoft apologists that have already googled my email and they're like, "Angela, if you want help, here's how you can get Microsoft to work. " And it involves like opening the terminal on a Windows computer and ls minus a and you delete three files then you download these applets and then if you want the font you want or if you want to save the settings you have to download this other thing and add it and it's like you're in an abusive relationship. Software you purchase should work like if you purchase a software you shouldn't have to like jailbreak it. That's crazy. Imagine choosing to work with Microsoft to save your science. It could never be me.