In-house and Free Market
Can In-house out-beat Open Competition? If so, at what cost? Can independent scientists ever win again? Can we democratize science again?
In-house & free market research have pros & cons. In-house offers more control & confidentiality, while the free market promotes innovation & lower prices. Can this apply to individual levels as well?
- In-house. my high school society with limited in-house research resources, making it hard to find tech enthusiasts. Although this wasn't necessarily bad, I was surprised by the recent boom in AI/CS. Despite the limitations, I antifragily developed my unique style.
- Open Market. Universities offer a free market competition environment where students compete for funding, recognition, and academic positions. This fosters innovation, encourages excellence, and creates a dynamic and stimulating environment for researchers and students. It's arguably the best edge of being in a University.
- In-house. Company research centers prioritize profits and innovation. Internal labs are ahead of published research for a competitive edge. For instance, Google's internal labs keep their cutting-edge research unpublished to maintain a competitive edge. This raises concerns about independent scientists and science democratization, but it's still a good time for independent study because...
- Open Market. The internet revolutionized scientific research for independent scientists with access to online resources. Collaboration, sharing, funding, and contributions to scientific progress and innovation are possible with a laptop and internet connection.
Maybe we need better infrastructure for internet-based, openly-competitive research infrastructure. Making and publishing thoughtful insights and research on the web should be more accessible. This Memex is one branch of that thought.