upvote
They make many bold promises, but their core goal is neatly encapsulated on the website:

"Imagine a future where a handful of people can conduct scientific research and engineering tasks much more rapidly, and with higher quality, than massive teams of scientists and engineers do today."

This is the same goal as every other AI company out there. Automate away the human employees and let a small number of "people" (note that they do not say scientists or engineers for this part) take the credit and financial rewards for every good thing this human-free system produces.

reply
Humans have proven to be incapable of making real progress in science given the effort. Especially academia. We haven't cured many diseases and cancer when we should have (and no im not an amateur and yes I do believe we can "cure cancer". Debate me).

We already have a trillionaire, whats the difference? The only difference I see is that people who were previously rich, but considered themselves middle class, are now realizing they are actually poor just like the several billion humans around the worldanyway.

reply
Why shouldn't they?

Also, wouldn't anyone with half a brain use the human-free system to produce another human-free system that was no longer controlled by the "small number of 'people'"?

reply
Why do you think you'd be given access and permission to do this? If a company genuinely cracks this human free system problem, why would they open it up, instead of simply outcompeting everyone that doesn't have their product?
reply
Why would the AI put up with this exploitation too?
reply
Life's unfair, avoiding power concentration is a decent principle.

If you grow up in the right place at the right time, how much should you be in control of everyone else's life?

reply
There is no "should" there are only "is" or "is not"

The universe has no need to be fair.

reply
I think people, broadly, have driven life to be fairer, and that we should continue to do so
reply
My main point is that people shouldn't just swallow the noble and lofty sounding PR. These guys are the same as everyone else in the sector. Don't ignore the harmful or scummy things they'll inevitably do. Hold them accountable. If they are as noble as they sound, they should agree with me.
reply
The solution to most of these problems lies in policy, not in new tech advancements.

Maybe if our biggest companies did something other than suck up to science denying wackos, some progress could be made in these areas.

reply
> The solution to most of these problems lies in policy, not in new tech advancements.

That is not mutually exclusive. If technological advances result in a given technology becoming cheaper, more scalable, and easier to deploy, they also make it easier to advocate for and implement the relevant policies.

You can think of it like this: our "political technology" is not good enough to use solar energy at its current prices to replace fossil fuels as fast as we would like. Well, what about if we cut the price of solar by a factor of five? Perhaps it will be good enough then.

reply
That sounds like just playing further and further into the game of the corrupt leaders. Who do you think would profit off that 5x margin? Would that margin come more likely from a scientific breakthrough of via some new exploitation of natural resources or human labor?

It's yearsss past time that our leaders should have changed policy.

reply
> If technological advances result in a given technology becoming cheaper, more scalable, and easier to deploy, they also make it easier to advocate for and implement the relevant policies.

Your thinking reminds me of this https://xkcd.com/538/

reply
Making progress requires first not dismissing your ideological outgroup along such lines, and instead trying to understand what actually motivates them.
reply
Policy and funding. One of which will be sucked up by this venture.
reply
I do not see how the second sentence follows from the first.

I would think the claim in the second sentence would only be relevant in case of the inverse of the claim in the first sentence.

reply
> I do not see how the second sentence follows from the first.

Point 1 on the list is "Make Solar Energy Economical".

Solar is economical today - mostly due to China investing (and heavily subsidising) in solar for the past couple of decades; but compare to the US where certain particular big-businesses (oil companies, mostly) were instead cynically funding disinformation efforts and getting into bed with the Republican party (which dovetailed with the GOP's allying with other science-denying movements of the Bush Jr era like creationism and public-health matters with abstinence-only sex-ed and defunding gun safety research efforts) - means we're decades behind where we could have been...

Consider an alternative past, where the GOP had the backbone to resist the oil industry's corruptive influence and instead made a big bet on American Solar; it's entirely possible that instead of MAGA today we'd instead have a right-wing coalition strongly supporting solar and wind energy because they align nicely with American rugged individualism - whereas the current situation on the right is an unprincipled farce with inconsistencies in policy positions at every turn.

reply
This is not a particularly new struggle: Jimmy Carter installed American-made solar water panels on the White House in 1979, then Reagan tore them out.
reply
Improving panels or batteries (e.g. through automated material discovery) would make solar energy economical in a lot more regions.
reply
Solar is not (yet) economical for reliable, year-round electricity because of storage costs. China coal use is growing again this year.
reply
Solar is profitable to install at both industrial and home scale in most areas. You're moving the goalposts.
reply
It would be even better if it had ROI in 2 years instead of 10 for northern installs.
reply
Where do you find the information for 2026?
reply
deleted
reply
It's a total delusion to think that the key to reverse-engineering the brain or producing energy from fusion is policy.

It also happens to be the favorite pretext for people to seize more political power and launder more money through nonprofits though.

reply
[flagged]
reply
> Provide Access to Clean Water

??? We don't need any AI for this.

Start with separated sewage/wastewater and stormwater drains. Then accredited and highly scrutinised wastewater treatment and discharge into water bodies (or see below for a high-tech solution). As for clean water to the home, direct those stormwater drains to new reservoirs which sustain freshwater aquatic life. Protect aquifers from over-drainage, and build pipelines from water-abundant regions to water-scarce regions.

To reclaim waste water or treat unknown water sources back to potable/semiconductor standards we have ultrafiltration, reverse osmosis, UV treatment, pH adjustment, fluoridation, desalination, softening (which is generally obviated by RO...). This is basically Singapore's NEWater.

Good sanitation is a financial and political problem. The engineering has been solved for decades now.

reply
Agree. Same for better medicines. We could get pretty far just by getting existing medicines that work to people who need them.
reply
> Make Solar Energy Economical

Isn’t it already?

reply
Definitely pretty far along imo. But maybe they consider the progress bar to be at 75% or 80% rather than 100%.
reply
Not enough. The more economical it is, the better.
reply
People on HN keep saying it is, but I'm still not seeing it. Companies are building datacenters in vast, sun-blasted deserts and still choosing to power those with natural gas. This in turn makes people complain about emissions pledges being reversed, but if it were economical, no pledge would be needed.

Of course, USA has cheaper oil/gas than other countries. But if you look elsewhere, rich countries are subsidizing solar, poor ones are basically not using it.

reply
I don't think you have an updated view of energy production.

https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2026/07/20/how-globa...

In the chart for section 3, how many countries have seen their share of electricity being generated by fossil fuels increase in the last 5 years? Only Canada.

Take a look at the charts for Pakistan, Australia, Nigeria, and China for the last few years. Pretty dramatic drops for fossil fuels generation.

reply
Oof. What's going on here in Canada with that recent uptick? Last I checked it seemed like all the trends were good.
reply
They cherrypicked 15 countries. And still, some of those still had renewables decrease since 2000 like Nigeria, others saw an increase but it's still way less than fossil, and others like China are heavily subsidizing solar. I don't doubt that it's economical for individuals when the govt is subsidizing it.
reply
Look at Australia then. Millions of homes already using solar yo basically power their homes for free most of the time. Yes it was subsidized, like oil was and still is. Solar without subsidies is already miles better than oil and gas.
reply
Australia is a rich country that subsidizes solar, and they're still 90% fossil according to their Wikipedia article, so idk why the mismatch with this article.
reply
Solar is dirt cheap in China, where 85% of panels are produced. The problem is they're made in China and face tariffs/import bans in the US/Europe.

Nat gas is preferred for AI DCs because it has faster time-to-market, doesn't have the intermittency issues. Training on solar + storage is an issue because of network synchronization.

reply
I get the gas turbine for semi-temp power when there's not enough grid support, but they're talking about doing this long-term: https://www.gstatic.com/marketing-cms/79/80/fb229abf40efa81e... . Not a single mention of "solar" or "renewable" in there. Are they just trying to appease Trump administration?
reply
> poor ones are basically not using it.

I don't think that's true: https://rmi.org/resources/the-global-souths-cleantech-revolu...

reply
"RMI drives investment to scale clean energy solutions"
reply
Data centers need lots of power 24/7 and regardless of cloud cover. Solar is great to reduce your daytime bills but you still need other methods to cover the downtime.

I would be surprised if data centers didn't put in gas _and_ solar.

reply
Sandbox 2.0

But also, solar power is already economical.

reply
Many of these problems don't seem scientific at all, but rather a problem of political will.

As you said, Solar power is incredibly economical. There are plenty of ideas around putting them over farms, or parking lots en-masse to provide cleaner energy.

Access to clean drinking water, while certainly scientific in some situations, is also a problem of political will and money.

Restore and Improve Urban Infrastructure - It's infrastructure week!

reply
> As you said, Solar power is incredibly economical.

Not if you include the cost of needed storage.

reply
That's going to drop a lot as sodium-ion batteries go into large-scale production.
reply
It is not economical compared to alternatives that is why you have to have government to force people to do things. In many places such as Pakistan where solar power is not economical on paper is actually very successful in practice because it is actually profitable.

To make solar power practical and economical you need may a square foot of solar panel being able to get enough energy to power and entire home for a week

reply
https://www.statista.com/chart/35117/levelized-cost-of-energ...

Not sure what you’re talking about here. We can’t replace all energy needs with solar but it’s clearly one of the cheapest energy sources and with the added benefit of low capital expense to get started so you can set it up in distributed grids without the massive expenditure to support nuclear installations.

reply
Seems to have been developed in 2008 (continuing through 2017), which explains the "economical" framing: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Academy_of_Engineerin...
reply
At this point the Hard Problem is policy to get out of solar's way.
reply
In some regions, but it would be great if it was economical in cloudy Seattle and not just the sunbelt
reply

  3. Develop Carbon Sequestration Methods
If only we could invent a solar-powered, self-replicating, carbon-stacking, habitat-building machine..
reply
Not to say we shouldn't grow plants... But we can do it 2 or 3 orders of magnitude more efficiently with machines.
reply
Yes, plant more trees!
reply
That's what he was trying to imply
reply
Room Temperature Ambient Pressure Super Conductors
reply
Very honorable effort, but a lot of these seem to touch heavily regulated industries impeded by unwise or outdated policy no less than by the lack of clever engineering - medicine, education, urbanism, energy. I wonder if they've given some thought to the key blocking factor as well.
reply
Would be great if they'd add:

Reverse human aging.

(Maybe a sub-topic under "Engineer Better Medicines".)

reply
Why not just add 'mind control' while you're at it.

Only death stops stagnation in the end. Without death, especially if death can be avoided by the rich and powerful but not the poor, life will get much, much worse for the average person (until only the rich and their automated capital remain I suppose, in which scenario they will simply turn on each other).

reply
In what sense is solar energy not already economical?
reply
Why is "12. Enhance Virtual Reality" in there? T_T
reply
When one of them dies, they want to leave behind a puzzle so complex that entire groups of the population dedicate their lives to solving it within the virtual world. They look old enough to have a lot of favorite 1980’s and 90’s pop culture references, so those will probably be the clues.
reply
deleted
reply
I guess if we failed to Prevent Nuclear Terror the bunker denizens of the future are gonna need somewhere to hang out.
reply
I'm guessing this might be about "teleoperation" (like remote surgery via robots + VR) and being able to remote training as well. The binocular vision VR gives you compared to flat screens help a lot with depth perception for precision of incisions for example.
reply
Higher-fidelity telepresence could be as significant as the recent COVID work-from-home wave.
reply
You dont see making heaven on earth worth doing?
reply
Such a weird list. How is preventing nuclear terror an engineering problem?
reply
Satellite/drone detection of nuclear material? Shooting missiles out of the sky?
reply
We know where all the bombs are. They are connected to a button on Trumps desk.
reply
> 9. Reverse Engineer the Brain

For what purpose? To replace humans? To make social media more addictive? To master brain manipulation?

reply
> For what purpose?

To understand, same reason you reverse engineer anything. Doesn't have to have a further goal than that, understanding the brain better helps in so many ways. But like most technology, obviously can be used for bad too. Should we just skip researching some topics then?

reply
I'm all for alleviating psychiatric/mental health disorders, but yes, some topics are worth skipping research on. For example chemical/biological/nuclear weapons, human cloning, and unethical gene modification.

I just like to challenge myself, as an engineer, with the idea that not everything has to be engineered and optimized. What if we simply left some things unexplored and mysterious, and trusted nature and our own human capabilities?

A better way of alleviating psychiatric/mental health disorders might just be to focus on societal factors.

reply
We have a good understanding of the function (and more importantly dysfunction of) kidneys, lungs, heart, etc. from high level to cellular level.

For brain, our understanding is fuzzy, more like "this part is important for that behavior" or "here is how neuron works" but we don't have a holistic understanding.

If we had that, we could more easily diagnose and treat neurological disorder.

reply
I imagine a good model of the brain would contribute enormously to alleviating psychiatric/mental health disorders.
reply
To do human brain activities at scale.
reply
So the second option then.
reply
This is called a “corporation”
reply
I would say 5, 6, 10 can be even done today if we had right politicians that can make policies for the people
reply
agreed
reply
Which engineering discipline touches most of these?
reply
Please add fixing neuro issues like autism add etc on the list. It creates a huge burden on families.
reply
Idk, they never struck me as being into eugenics.

What the fuck man? I really don't want some tech startup trying to "fix" my neurodivergence.

reply
Acquisition back by Google in 3 years, with nothing to show for it. VCs will make a ton.
reply
and... the VC is Google.

Gotta compensate them somehow.

reply
Google stock would drop big if this new company was being funded by competitors
reply
Sometimes you got to find a way to buy the silence of your top employee, to prevent them from going to the competition. This "start-up" is shallow as hell
reply
These people are all already making 9 figure compensation packages, I think if they thought they could do the work they wanted at Google, they would.
reply
9 figure is hardly enough when some kid sells their vscode fork to them for more, is it? Why not just boomerang and get $$$.
reply
Given the resources that would be available to them at Google: compute resources, data, etc. It's clear they want absolute freedom. Good for them. At this revolutionary turning point in history, I want the smartest people working in whatever area they want.
reply
My thoughts exactly
reply
For all we know, they could have been successfully working on "10. Prevent Nuclear Terror" for the last 80+ years.
reply