Ask HN: Anybody Started a Research Institute?
172 comments
Hi.
I went through this journey myself.
I have a CS master degree, and always wanted to transition into AI research (focus on probabilistic programming, deep learning and self-play, but also simulation, learning-to-learn, bayesian inference, genetic algorithms). The initial plan was to self-learn machine learning, deep learning and statistics. I did that for 1 year, with the hope of joining on of the big AI labs afterwards. As it's very competitive, I couldn't join one of those labs, and wasn't willing to compromise on that. So I turned to plan B: salvage my ML skills by applying them to crypto trading, and if it works, then I'll have funding to start my own lab.
Plan B worked: in 1 year and 2 months, we turned 40k of our own funds into [redacted]. Today we are a team of 5 and we do $5B of daily volume, around 3% of the global crypto markets. Now the challenge is to start the research division, operate the trading and research in tandem, and create the right incentives: the research converts money into ideas, the trading ideas into money. The research would have two sub-divisions: fundamental and applied to trading.
My motivation for the research is mostly curiosity: I want to de-mystify intelligence (natural or artificial) and reverse-engineer it. When you talk about your lab, I resonate a lot with "watch[ing] the beauty of it". The way I would describe my research agenda is the following: put a bunch of phds in a room, see what happens.
If that sounds interesting, email me at [redacted]
Plan B worked: in 1 year and 2 months, we turned 40k of our own funds into [redacted]. Today we are a team of 5 and we do $5B of daily volume, around 3% of the global crypto markets. Now the challenge is to start the research division, operate the trading and research in tandem, and create the right incentives: the research converts money into ideas, the trading ideas into money. The research would have two sub-divisions: fundamental and applied to trading.
My motivation for the research is mostly curiosity: I want to de-mystify intelligence (natural or artificial) and reverse-engineer it. When you talk about your lab, I resonate a lot with "watch[ing] the beauty of it". The way I would describe my research agenda is the following: put a bunch of phds in a room, see what happens.
If that sounds interesting, email me at [redacted]
[flagged]
We have a hard time believing it ourselves too. I did leave out that around 25M of it is profits reinvested over time and it did do well because we are in a bull market. Binance forces you to hold 11k BNB to be vip9 to get the best fees, we started buying it at around $15, it's worth now around $300 per BNB, and we also hold other cryptos as a side investment. The rest is algotrading profits.
The initial investment was 40k, no other funding rounds or money laundering.
The initial investment was 40k, no other funding rounds or money laundering.
> it did do well because we are in a bull market
You're not in a bull market. You're in fucking Wonderland.
Please take this reply as an opportunity to provide evidence for your tremendous wealth. Nobody makes $100m without a footprint.
You're not in a bull market. You're in fucking Wonderland.
Please take this reply as an opportunity to provide evidence for your tremendous wealth. Nobody makes $100m without a footprint.
Why would he/she feel obliged to defend him/herself in some random HN thread?
Ego or malice.
Just out of curiosity, how does one even custody 100M dollars in crypto markets?
In equities/traditional trading anything above 8 figures allow you to have prime brokerage access (e.g., Archeogos).
For the type of arb trading and yield harvesting OP is referring to (and not throwing shade; just curious), how do you even find any broker or exchange in the crypto space that are willing to custody 100M worth of cash and crypto for long term stat arb, yield harvesting and fund harvesting. Do even the most established crypto exchanges allow you the covered margin to short sell futures and participate in funding harvest and custody the coins for you?
I get OP might be just market making across decentralized exchanges. That scares me honestly more. As you are dealing with more exchanges some of which have more security and exit scam risks.
Don't get me wrong I def. believe there are opportunities in crypto. Just curious if the infrastructure in place makes the type of trading OP talks about safe and accessible to retail.
In equities/traditional trading anything above 8 figures allow you to have prime brokerage access (e.g., Archeogos).
For the type of arb trading and yield harvesting OP is referring to (and not throwing shade; just curious), how do you even find any broker or exchange in the crypto space that are willing to custody 100M worth of cash and crypto for long term stat arb, yield harvesting and fund harvesting. Do even the most established crypto exchanges allow you the covered margin to short sell futures and participate in funding harvest and custody the coins for you?
I get OP might be just market making across decentralized exchanges. That scares me honestly more. As you are dealing with more exchanges some of which have more security and exit scam risks.
Don't get me wrong I def. believe there are opportunities in crypto. Just curious if the infrastructure in place makes the type of trading OP talks about safe and accessible to retail.
> how do you even find any broker or exchange in the crypto space that are willing to custody 100M worth
You definitely do not put all your eggs in one basket.
The mature legal and insurance infrastructure in the fiat markets encourages this kind of all-eggs-in-one-basket in order to get better treatment from your brokers. In crypto the incentive is precisely the opposite.
> more exchanges some of which have more security and exit scam risks.
That is a very, very important risk that must be mitigated. Doing so is part of what separates success from failure. The residual unmitigatable risk is treated as a cost of doing business.
It's still the wild west in many ways. Some people like that. Most people who've spent a lot of time on Wall Street won't.
You definitely do not put all your eggs in one basket.
The mature legal and insurance infrastructure in the fiat markets encourages this kind of all-eggs-in-one-basket in order to get better treatment from your brokers. In crypto the incentive is precisely the opposite.
> more exchanges some of which have more security and exit scam risks.
That is a very, very important risk that must be mitigated. Doing so is part of what separates success from failure. The residual unmitigatable risk is treated as a cost of doing business.
It's still the wild west in many ways. Some people like that. Most people who've spent a lot of time on Wall Street won't.
I too call BS. Probably an attempt to draw up interest in the fund, which people will fall for, some will even send crypto to some address in hopes of these 'unbelievable' numbers.
Very likely BS, but it is at least consistent with a prior Who is hiring? post.
[link redacted]
[link redacted]
You can probably make 100M out of 40k with a single trade just by being lucky and holding while the gigantic crypto bubble is being blown up. But this story isn't over yet and for every lucky idiot like OP there are thousands who lose everything.
I make ~0.4x-1.4x+ per month from crypto trading. This isn't far from not-a-cat's experience of ~1.75x per month.
Not affiliated with not-a-cat.
Not affiliated with not-a-cat.
Very impressive and congratulations for playing the game right, but the idea that 3% of all crypto use is from 5 people in SF ratifies a lot of my negative beliefs about the crypto world.
Where did you get SF from? I mean seems like a likely place but I don't think OP said that did they?
I think 3 and 5 are the problematic variables there, not SF.
[deleted]
Why? A priori there were 5 fewer, they saw an opportunity and entered, and likely more will too, and eventually it will saturate and balance out. Startups providing liquidity can be a good thing.
As a counterpoint I'd love to see the numbers for fiat stock markets. I assume the big players do ALOT of trading volume relative to the majority.
2500x returns in 14 months - that averages to an astounding 178x returns monthly.
* If this is true * - it sounds like maybe the best return the markets have ever seen which I would imagine would be the luck of investing at the base of the pandemic and enjoying the inflation since then.
[edit]: manners were missing: * if this is true * - congrats on your run and hopefully those research dollars develop some interesting finds.
* If this is true * - it sounds like maybe the best return the markets have ever seen which I would imagine would be the luck of investing at the base of the pandemic and enjoying the inflation since then.
[edit]: manners were missing: * if this is true * - congrats on your run and hopefully those research dollars develop some interesting finds.
It's actually 1.75x monthly. 1.75^14 == 2500.
Plus if they used any leverage it's even higher.
ML has proven to have incredibly poor results in crypto trading or market trading in general. There is paper after paper published on the dismal performance of this approach.
It seems just very unlikely.
It seems just very unlikely.
That's impressive. This reminds me of a story I read about being an independent researcher (https://andreas-madsen.medium.com/becoming-an-independent-re...).
For those who want to do the same. When did you start?. How did you start?. What kind of setup did you have?. How did you stay focus?, and for how long did you work on that?. Any failure stories you want to share?.
For those who want to do the same. When did you start?. How did you start?. What kind of setup did you have?. How did you stay focus?, and for how long did you work on that?. Any failure stories you want to share?.
Most of it comes down do conviction and sticking to my not-so-promissing setup for 1 year, while every single of my peers were either thinking WTF are you doing, or telling me why my thing would fail. The rest is luck where we could scale way past what we though was possible.
I stayed focused by creating a penalty system where if I worked for less than 7 hours that day, I'd burn 1$ for every missing hour. I still maintain that spreadsheet with the self-debt over time (that I have yet to pay, but I will by burning crypto). Also my screen saver message is "get back to work"
I stayed focused by creating a penalty system where if I worked for less than 7 hours that day, I'd burn 1$ for every missing hour. I still maintain that spreadsheet with the self-debt over time (that I have yet to pay, but I will by burning crypto). Also my screen saver message is "get back to work"
You turned 40.000 into [redacted]? That's incredibly impressive (even with the recent crypto bull run).
Was this all achieved with time-series prediction through ML models? I had the impression those were hard to get right, but props to you for clearly doing so.
Was this all achieved with time-series prediction through ML models? I had the impression those were hard to get right, but props to you for clearly doing so.
I think it's both easy and hard, depending how you look at it. Hard because it's a tough ML problem where you have to combat overfitting and the messiness of the real world; easy because crypto is clearly one of the easiest markets to trade and there are opportunities all over the place (compared to equities for example). On top of my head: stat arb, yield arb, exchange arb, funding arb, market making / liquidity providing (CEX/DEX), doing/preventing sandwich attacks, good old yield farming...
Everyone's a genius in a bull market :D
How are people not more skeptical of this. This would without doubt be the most successful trading run in history and we are expected to believe that a self taught HN rando who couldn't even get into an AI lab did this with 5 people in SF?? Renaissance Tech is probably the best hedge fund in the world and they can only manage something like 30% a year but this guy did 250000% in a year and change? Give me a break. If anything they executed a massive pump and dump/rug pull and nothing more.
I mean why bother with this so called "research" endeavor when you could be a deci-billionaire in a year or two using the same strategy you've been using and then simply buy OpenAI or whatever. The whole story makes no sense.
I mean why bother with this so called "research" endeavor when you could be a deci-billionaire in a year or two using the same strategy you've been using and then simply buy OpenAI or whatever. The whole story makes no sense.
The insane claims, the failure to provide any proof despite the ease of doing so and the email address at the end tells me this is a scam artist fishing for gullible marks.
That’s quite a flex! How do you anticipate disseminating the results of your research group without compromising the highly competitive position of your financial interests? Will you publish papers on toy datasets?
Agreed. Good question. Regarding our current approach, my hope is that someday our alpha goes away entirely and we can publish our strategy in detail. But going forward, the plan is to have a trading division that keeps research secret, and a fundamental AI research division (unrelated to trading) that publishes publicly.
And now we know how inflated the markets are.
I also have tried starting a research institute (eonias.org), and am a member of ronininstitute.org. I’d be happy to have conversations with anyone interested in setting up an institute: [email protected] (my name).
> in 1 year and 2 months, we turned 40k of our own funds into [redacted].
This would be a challenge even if you had perfect foresight.
If you had gone all-in on Dogecoin, you would still only have ~5M.
This would be a challenge even if you had perfect foresight.
If you had gone all-in on Dogecoin, you would still only have ~5M.
You have to assume that they also a) levered up and b) were doing some kind of arbitrage, not just HODLing. Color me skeptical but wilder things have been known to happen.
I’ve seen some moments of price differences between crypto markets even this year that you could hand-trade for a profit.
I could alternatively assume that you time travelled with a copy of Grays Sports Almanac.
Wow, very impressive. What sort of trading yields such mega returns? Is the value in cryptocurrency or has it been realized in actual cash returns?
That's awesome! What year did you start if you don't mind me asking? Was it around the time btc jumped to 40k?
that's really impressive, congrats. for how much of that year and 2 months were you working solo ?
I spent 1 year learning about AI/ML with books and moocs. Then 1 year building a prototype. Then 1 year + 2 months as a team.
On the subject of moocs and books, which were some of your favorites? I'm an SWE with an out-of-date background in AI and I'd love to deep-dive into ML, but there are _so many_ mooc options nowadays without a great way to determine quality.
What about finance, crypto and algo trading? How much time did you spend on those subjects, and what are some good resources?
3 anecdotes that might be useful.
1. TTI Chicago
The holy grail? It is relatively new (15 yrs old) and does top notch research. Super prestigious in certain areas. It is kind of related to UChicago, but also not really.
A key learning is that you can start your institute by borrowing some prestige. Split some of your funds with a prestigious university while allowing some of your researchers to hold adjunct positions at UChicago. The researchers get their academic prestige, and you get the researcher to work at your institute.
Eventually your institute will gather enough prestige that your researchers will call themselves members of TTIC first, and UChicago second.
2. Allen AI (The tempting example you want to avoid)
You are not Paul Allen. You do not have $2b to spend on your deathbed. You don't have every important person in the world on a quick dial. Your name isn't gilded in prestige as Paul's was. It's like trying to start a space exploring company by following in Bezos's footsteps.
3. Wadhwani AI (https://www.wadhwaniai.org/founders/)
I haven't personally worked with them, but attended a seminar about them once. At surface level it seems like something doable for a rich HN type. Decent but not impossible funding ($30m), clear vision, small but lean and seemed to be doing good work.
___________________
At some point I want to start a fully independent educational institute. But so far, my goal is to focus on education (K12) rather than research. (that's when I get to it. I'll languish as a tech worker making castles in the sky for now)
1. TTI Chicago
The holy grail? It is relatively new (15 yrs old) and does top notch research. Super prestigious in certain areas. It is kind of related to UChicago, but also not really.
A key learning is that you can start your institute by borrowing some prestige. Split some of your funds with a prestigious university while allowing some of your researchers to hold adjunct positions at UChicago. The researchers get their academic prestige, and you get the researcher to work at your institute.
Eventually your institute will gather enough prestige that your researchers will call themselves members of TTIC first, and UChicago second.
2. Allen AI (The tempting example you want to avoid)
You are not Paul Allen. You do not have $2b to spend on your deathbed. You don't have every important person in the world on a quick dial. Your name isn't gilded in prestige as Paul's was. It's like trying to start a space exploring company by following in Bezos's footsteps.
3. Wadhwani AI (https://www.wadhwaniai.org/founders/)
I haven't personally worked with them, but attended a seminar about them once. At surface level it seems like something doable for a rich HN type. Decent but not impossible funding ($30m), clear vision, small but lean and seemed to be doing good work.
___________________
At some point I want to start a fully independent educational institute. But so far, my goal is to focus on education (K12) rather than research. (that's when I get to it. I'll languish as a tech worker making castles in the sky for now)
IMO an important ingredient of the TTIC formula is physical proximity to the university. Your researchers can give talks on campus/meet up with Uchicago researchers/visit academic libraries by just crossing the Midway, a short and walkable distance.
So if you do decide to go this route, make sure whatever university you choose as the host has enough space within walking distance that your researchers can easily interact with the campus, go to conferences, etc.
So if you do decide to go this route, make sure whatever university you choose as the host has enough space within walking distance that your researchers can easily interact with the campus, go to conferences, etc.
Along with Allen AI there is the Craig Venter institute. You did not just swindle wall street (I mean this in a good way) to fund scientific research and cash out at the top by having your board fire you (crocodile tears) to the tune of ~15B. Even if you did, your eponymous self-funded research institute will burn through its funds in a decade and your researchers will start having to do federal grant seeking at the point in time when federal grants are the hardest to obtain and other competitive research institutes are seeking a higher balance of private money.
A better example to shoot for would be peter Mitchell's Glynn research institute. You raise money to study one thing and one thing only. You do your research in a garage (to be fair, of a giant regency manor) and finish it. And then win the Nobel prize.
I'm still trying to find out what happened to Percy Julian's Julian research institute, which enjoyed some success but no longer exists as far as I can tell.
A better example to shoot for would be peter Mitchell's Glynn research institute. You raise money to study one thing and one thing only. You do your research in a garage (to be fair, of a giant regency manor) and finish it. And then win the Nobel prize.
I'm still trying to find out what happened to Percy Julian's Julian research institute, which enjoyed some success but no longer exists as far as I can tell.
By the way "by swindle wall street" I mean sell them on the idea that "you could patent human genes". I'm not convinced that Craig actually believed this was possible or that even it was a reasonable business model, but wall street in their boundless avarice certainly did; note that this all went down more than a decade before the myriad genomics supreme court case, which settles the issue in the negative.
I am helping lead the first research group at a recently-founded institute in Germany.
What is the mission of your institute? Is this a collection of individuals doing their own research, or a group of collaborators working towards a shared goal? How do your ideal members measure their own performance? Is it through papers, blog posts, tech demos, products, or something else? With academics you need to be especially vigilant about the difference between vanity metrics and real output.
For funding, are you allocating cash on an annual basis, up-front, on-demand, or through some other scheme? What sort of timeline do you want for people to stay at the institute? And do you intend the budgets to be competitive, either locally or internationally?
What lab infrastructure will you build and maintain, versus having the researchers handle? As a lab-based researcher, setting things up can easily consume the first 6-12 months (plumbing, electrical, HVAC, optics, wetlab equipment, regulations...). Once someone goes through the effort to build this they can easily become quite protective, potentially locking out newcomers or creating an internal system of patronage.
Having answers for these questions and others will be essential for recruitment. Your first few hires will dictate the direction of the institute, since further recruitment will be driven largely by their networks.
Feel free to email me (username at gmail) if you would like to discuss further.
What is the mission of your institute? Is this a collection of individuals doing their own research, or a group of collaborators working towards a shared goal? How do your ideal members measure their own performance? Is it through papers, blog posts, tech demos, products, or something else? With academics you need to be especially vigilant about the difference between vanity metrics and real output.
For funding, are you allocating cash on an annual basis, up-front, on-demand, or through some other scheme? What sort of timeline do you want for people to stay at the institute? And do you intend the budgets to be competitive, either locally or internationally?
What lab infrastructure will you build and maintain, versus having the researchers handle? As a lab-based researcher, setting things up can easily consume the first 6-12 months (plumbing, electrical, HVAC, optics, wetlab equipment, regulations...). Once someone goes through the effort to build this they can easily become quite protective, potentially locking out newcomers or creating an internal system of patronage.
Having answers for these questions and others will be essential for recruitment. Your first few hires will dictate the direction of the institute, since further recruitment will be driven largely by their networks.
Feel free to email me (username at gmail) if you would like to discuss further.
> With academics you need to be especially vigilant about the difference between vanity metrics and real output.
What would you consider "real output", especially in contrast to "vanity metrics"?
Asking mostly because I'm curious how someone in your position would see it.
For a lot of folks, academia's a fun ecosystem to participate in: they enjoy it and it pays the bills. To participate, they need to maintain popularity, much as a living organism needs to maintain energy. So their focus is on optimizing their popularity. They'd be primarily interested in metrics that represent their popularity, especially if those metrics help them plan how to gain more of it to further advance their career.
But other folks participate in academia to do research for other reasons, e.g. advancing technology. They're more likely to focus on maintaining sustenance-level popularity rather than maximizing popularity. They'd tend to dismiss many popularity-centric metrics as frivolous.
So if you're helping lead a research-institution, then are you primarily concerned with "real output" in the sense of "stuff that makes us popular enough to garner continued support"? Or are you more interested in another goal, like advancing science/technology? And how do you assess the value of a researcher's work given these goals?
What would you consider "real output", especially in contrast to "vanity metrics"?
Asking mostly because I'm curious how someone in your position would see it.
For a lot of folks, academia's a fun ecosystem to participate in: they enjoy it and it pays the bills. To participate, they need to maintain popularity, much as a living organism needs to maintain energy. So their focus is on optimizing their popularity. They'd be primarily interested in metrics that represent their popularity, especially if those metrics help them plan how to gain more of it to further advance their career.
But other folks participate in academia to do research for other reasons, e.g. advancing technology. They're more likely to focus on maintaining sustenance-level popularity rather than maximizing popularity. They'd tend to dismiss many popularity-centric metrics as frivolous.
So if you're helping lead a research-institution, then are you primarily concerned with "real output" in the sense of "stuff that makes us popular enough to garner continued support"? Or are you more interested in another goal, like advancing science/technology? And how do you assess the value of a researcher's work given these goals?
This is an important question, and something we have considered when building our group.
My background is largely in experimental physical sciences, and one of the vanity metrics in my fields is publication in a Nature- or Science-family journal, or equivalent high-impact journal. In some cases publishing there has led to high-quality peer review and publication, but the pursuit of these papers drives many to over-sell or over-complicate the work. I tend to focus more on smaller studies which can be reasonably completely described, versus anthology publication.
But more directly, we measure output in three categories, in order of importance: people, validated concepts, and publication/dissemination.
For people, we want to develop a sense of integrity and curiosity, which means some mixture of freedom to roam and an ability to focus on defining and answering a concrete question. We want people to leave our group as good citizens and scientists.
Validated concepts take several forms. In the physical sciences it is often expensive to recreate an experiment, so performing and reporting the correct set of controls and validations is critical. A successful experiment is one which does not need to be repeated, because there is sufficient clarity and design to assure the next person that what was found is correct. Often this means obtaining a proper negative result which shuts down entire lines of inquiry. Especially since many projects require months or years of build-up, we must ensure that the foundation is solid.
As for publication and dissemination, our goal is that someone else would look at the work and consider building on top of it. In order for someone else to accept the work there needs to be a real trust or means for validation. We are open with our data, code, and methods, but much of the challenge lies in ensuring the dataset is valid and complete in the first place.
You are right to note that popularity drives academia, in the same way that charisma and a good pitch can get a startup off the ground. High citation counts, big-name grants, fancy titles, and time spent at big-name institutions are the standard metrics for success. I come from a somewhat outside perspective since I spent some time in start-up prior to this position, where our focus was more on actionable outcomes than positive results. But for the students and postdocs, these pressures for advancement are real and not easy to reckon with. I have no good answer, apart from attempting to impart personal ethics and aligning interests where possible.
The longevity and source of funding is a key factor in fighting the popularity contest. For our institute this is largely solved by solid political capital, which gives us some cover to pursue things without significant concern about short-term popularity. Long-term we want to be known for producing useful research, which others incorporate into their own work and become more productive.
In short, a given researcher is successful if they have identified a self-contained question and answered it sufficiently to be a building block for further work, either as a positive or negative result.
My background is largely in experimental physical sciences, and one of the vanity metrics in my fields is publication in a Nature- or Science-family journal, or equivalent high-impact journal. In some cases publishing there has led to high-quality peer review and publication, but the pursuit of these papers drives many to over-sell or over-complicate the work. I tend to focus more on smaller studies which can be reasonably completely described, versus anthology publication.
But more directly, we measure output in three categories, in order of importance: people, validated concepts, and publication/dissemination.
For people, we want to develop a sense of integrity and curiosity, which means some mixture of freedom to roam and an ability to focus on defining and answering a concrete question. We want people to leave our group as good citizens and scientists.
Validated concepts take several forms. In the physical sciences it is often expensive to recreate an experiment, so performing and reporting the correct set of controls and validations is critical. A successful experiment is one which does not need to be repeated, because there is sufficient clarity and design to assure the next person that what was found is correct. Often this means obtaining a proper negative result which shuts down entire lines of inquiry. Especially since many projects require months or years of build-up, we must ensure that the foundation is solid.
As for publication and dissemination, our goal is that someone else would look at the work and consider building on top of it. In order for someone else to accept the work there needs to be a real trust or means for validation. We are open with our data, code, and methods, but much of the challenge lies in ensuring the dataset is valid and complete in the first place.
You are right to note that popularity drives academia, in the same way that charisma and a good pitch can get a startup off the ground. High citation counts, big-name grants, fancy titles, and time spent at big-name institutions are the standard metrics for success. I come from a somewhat outside perspective since I spent some time in start-up prior to this position, where our focus was more on actionable outcomes than positive results. But for the students and postdocs, these pressures for advancement are real and not easy to reckon with. I have no good answer, apart from attempting to impart personal ethics and aligning interests where possible.
The longevity and source of funding is a key factor in fighting the popularity contest. For our institute this is largely solved by solid political capital, which gives us some cover to pursue things without significant concern about short-term popularity. Long-term we want to be known for producing useful research, which others incorporate into their own work and become more productive.
In short, a given researcher is successful if they have identified a self-contained question and answered it sufficiently to be a building block for further work, either as a positive or negative result.
I'm interested in doing something like this too, with a research focus on robotics, simulation, and programming languages.
The big dichotomy in research orgs is whether you need resources beyond researcher stipends. Robotics usually does, and programming language research usually doesn't. OpenAI does -- both computing resources and infrastructure team salaries. Make sure you know which kind you're starting.
Another dichotomy: permanent or term employment. It depends on how long-term the projects are. Bell Labs and PARC got a lot of mileage out of permanent tenures, but the term model is (a) cheaper, (b) good for collaboration because people can come for a semester and carry ideas in and out.
Stipend + remote living will attract only young, single researchers for finite terms, so make sure that's what you want.
Email me (in profile) if you want to talk more.
The big dichotomy in research orgs is whether you need resources beyond researcher stipends. Robotics usually does, and programming language research usually doesn't. OpenAI does -- both computing resources and infrastructure team salaries. Make sure you know which kind you're starting.
Another dichotomy: permanent or term employment. It depends on how long-term the projects are. Bell Labs and PARC got a lot of mileage out of permanent tenures, but the term model is (a) cheaper, (b) good for collaboration because people can come for a semester and carry ideas in and out.
Stipend + remote living will attract only young, single researchers for finite terms, so make sure that's what you want.
Email me (in profile) if you want to talk more.
I do not see your email in your profile. (Not OP, but really interested to talk about starting a research institute)
a new and better willow garage?? =D
Having worked with academics before, the biggest problem you will face is not having enough prestige to attract "great minds". You're probably off on the money too - academics will expect to be able to buy a comfortable house and support a family on your stipend, not live on ramen like a startup.
They're a fickle bunch, but very rewarding to work with!
They're a fickle bunch, but very rewarding to work with!
You’re describing academics who have already made it, people who got tenure. There are plenty of really minted PhDs who would be quite happy to move to the arse of nowhere for a postdoc with no teaching duties. The competition for academic posts is intense in every field I’m aware of and the outside options are not great except in fields where a Bachelor’s is an excellent choice already. You could afford at least five post docs used to living in genteel poverty for the cost of one established academic.
Recruiting a postdoc at a new institute without a track record of advancing people is a very tough sell. That would be an extremely risky career move.
The best bet for a new research institute is to have a large endowment and recruit two or three large names in a field. People who already have a good reputation. The large endowment is necessary to prove that you will ongoing resources to keep the research funded into the future.
The best bet for a new research institute is to have a large endowment and recruit two or three large names in a field. People who already have a good reputation. The large endowment is necessary to prove that you will ongoing resources to keep the research funded into the future.
> Recruiting a postdoc at a new institute without a track record of advancing people is a very tough sell. That would be an extremely risky career move.
Doing a postdoc is itself a large bet that usually fails to pay off, retrospectively making both the PhD and the postdoc look like extremely poor choices by any monetary calculus. The supply of people who want to stay in Science/Research/Academia is a lot greater than the demand outside perhaps ML/AI. Even fields with great outside options for PhDs, like Economics, Computer Science or Engineering have enormous competition for academic jobs, or para-academic ones, like adjuncting.
Doing a postdoc is itself a large bet that usually fails to pay off, retrospectively making both the PhD and the postdoc look like extremely poor choices by any monetary calculus. The supply of people who want to stay in Science/Research/Academia is a lot greater than the demand outside perhaps ML/AI. Even fields with great outside options for PhDs, like Economics, Computer Science or Engineering have enormous competition for academic jobs, or para-academic ones, like adjuncting.
Off topic, but I always do a bit of a double-take at how Americans use "Adjunct Professor." In Canada, that would be called "Contract Academic" or similar. I'll bet it is different again in Europe, so for clarity, that is basically a low paid teaching position.
In Canada, an Adjunct Professor is unpaid, but actually somewhat prestigious. It is a recognition of your abilities in a field and might be given to someone in industry who collaborates with a researcher at the university (for example).
In Canada, an Adjunct Professor is unpaid, but actually somewhat prestigious. It is a recognition of your abilities in a field and might be given to someone in industry who collaborates with a researcher at the university (for example).
"In Canada, an Adjunct Professor is unpaid, but actually somewhat prestigious. It is a recognition of your abilities in a field and might be given to someone in industry who collaborates with a researcher at the university (for example)."
That was originally how it was used in the U.S. too. "Someone who needs a non-permanent affiliation with the University to teach some classes" - usually someone from industry or the community, etc. whose expertise was valuable to the educational mission.
The modern version is...sort of depressing.
That was originally how it was used in the U.S. too. "Someone who needs a non-permanent affiliation with the University to teach some classes" - usually someone from industry or the community, etc. whose expertise was valuable to the educational mission.
The modern version is...sort of depressing.
> Off topic, but I always do a bit of a double-take at how Americans use "Adjunct Professor."
I think in the US, almost anyone with a job at a college is a 'professor'. You see 'professors' in their late 20s or early 30s.
I think in the US, almost anyone with a job at a college is a 'professor'. You see 'professors' in their late 20s or early 30s.
Sorry to bring the bad news, but the author the first comment is 100% right. Moreover, structure in academia is different than in Startups. In startups, people don't care about "names" and "prestige". In academia, it is different. In order to get your next job in academia, you need (1) recommendation letters (2) citations. Advisors usually have a larger network and experience to be able to publish papers and help you climb the ladder through their networks/recommendations.
In Industry, you can come from no-name university, and you can still make it to FAANG (or top tier companies). In academia, that's impossible. To start, it is impossible to make it to good PhD program without publishing papers in top-tier conference, MSc student in no-name universities can't afford finding advisor to easily do that. Good PhD programs will help you to join a good Lab, and usually it is through network + recommendations.
In Startup world, you can sit in your dorm room, without anyone believing in you and you can make it.
P.S. I am a research engineer, I worked in both places and that was my observations. There is no shortcuts, everything is hierarchical in academia.
In Industry, you can come from no-name university, and you can still make it to FAANG (or top tier companies). In academia, that's impossible. To start, it is impossible to make it to good PhD program without publishing papers in top-tier conference, MSc student in no-name universities can't afford finding advisor to easily do that. Good PhD programs will help you to join a good Lab, and usually it is through network + recommendations.
In Startup world, you can sit in your dorm room, without anyone believing in you and you can make it.
P.S. I am a research engineer, I worked in both places and that was my observations. There is no shortcuts, everything is hierarchical in academia.
Well, I think that's a bit pessimistic.
I think every Msc student at a "no-name" german university has the chance to publish a paper at a top-tier conference. Student research assistant jobs are plenty and the Msc Thesis can be real-science. Every Msc. CS program here I know has a research-option so that instead of lecture you can do research. It's just hard to publish in those top-tier conferences and most research is more applied (and therefore more niche!) so its not easy to find an advisor for this. But in my experience even if the professor is working in a more applied setting you can push for a more basic-research, research is research. But you can do a phd here without publishing a paper first, so I don't think most Msc Students see it as a priority.
I think every Msc student at a "no-name" german university has the chance to publish a paper at a top-tier conference. Student research assistant jobs are plenty and the Msc Thesis can be real-science. Every Msc. CS program here I know has a research-option so that instead of lecture you can do research. It's just hard to publish in those top-tier conferences and most research is more applied (and therefore more niche!) so its not easy to find an advisor for this. But in my experience even if the professor is working in a more applied setting you can push for a more basic-research, research is research. But you can do a phd here without publishing a paper first, so I don't think most Msc Students see it as a priority.
As someone who went through German academia at a very high level, with a top PhD, early and lasting grant success, top-tier publications and a multidisciplinary network, but who still could not land a Professorship in Germany but had to leave the country for it, I can tell you, it is not too pessimistic what ___luigi writes.
Hierarchy is everything in academia, especially in Germany. The only way to tenure is to have someone up there already who is willing to pull many strings for you.
Hierarchy is everything in academia, especially in Germany. The only way to tenure is to have someone up there already who is willing to pull many strings for you.
>> .. a "no-name" german university
We come from different places. German universities are good in average. + MSc student have the chance to work as "working students" (20hr/week) at any company in Germany. https://www.topuniversities.com/university-rankings/world-un...
>> .. It's just hard to publish in those top-tier conferences
Hard is relative. You should also check the costs of publishing a paper or attending a conference for students from global south https://twitter.com/hadyelsahar/status/1374699909451030542
>> But you can do a phd here without publishing a paper first
I agree with that.
We come from different places. German universities are good in average. + MSc student have the chance to work as "working students" (20hr/week) at any company in Germany. https://www.topuniversities.com/university-rankings/world-un...
>> .. It's just hard to publish in those top-tier conferences
Hard is relative. You should also check the costs of publishing a paper or attending a conference for students from global south https://twitter.com/hadyelsahar/status/1374699909451030542
>> But you can do a phd here without publishing a paper first
I agree with that.
If academia is 100% about status hierarchies this definitely wouldn’t work. It probably won’t work anyway but if there’s anything real in the function used to judge academic worth of work then there’s potential for it to work. There are multiple ways to improve that likelihood, more money most obviously of all. But new successful research institutes are founded so it’s clearly possible. Very unlikely unless there’s a very big budget, excellent taste in selection of applicants or both, but hardly impossible.
> .. more money most obviously of all.
I would challenge this point. There are few research labs in Singapore and middle east (UAE, Saudi Arabia) where money is not a problem. I have seen many researchers fly there to build research groups, but many of them leave after some time. You can see papers coming from these groups in top-tier conferences (NeurIPS, KDD, etc) every years, but these papers come from individuals, not groups. Money is one ingredient, you need fresh blood and students to work on new ideas. You need an ecosystem for research and industry to adopt and develop some of these ideas (e.g. Standford/Google, UCLA/DeepMind, UoT/Uber, MIT/Boston startups, etc)
I would challenge this point. There are few research labs in Singapore and middle east (UAE, Saudi Arabia) where money is not a problem. I have seen many researchers fly there to build research groups, but many of them leave after some time. You can see papers coming from these groups in top-tier conferences (NeurIPS, KDD, etc) every years, but these papers come from individuals, not groups. Money is one ingredient, you need fresh blood and students to work on new ideas. You need an ecosystem for research and industry to adopt and develop some of these ideas (e.g. Standford/Google, UCLA/DeepMind, UoT/Uber, MIT/Boston startups, etc)
> There are plenty of really minted PhDs who would be quite happy [...] for a postdoc with no teaching duties.
As one of those people, I'm happy to move to the middle of nowhere, IF it's for a place with a stellar reputation that's going to help me do good science and (unfortunately) has some name-brand recognition.
As one of those people, I'm happy to move to the middle of nowhere, IF it's for a place with a stellar reputation that's going to help me do good science and (unfortunately) has some name-brand recognition.
In the US, it is hard to recruit postdocs unless you are at a top 10 school (I tried several times). Potential postdocs are largely incentivized by: (1) name recognition of their mentor since their letter and networking will get them their next job and (2) the likelihood of getting top-tier publications. Also, they get a decent salary and health insurance in engineering fields.
A brand new research institute does none of these things for them. I don't see why a fresh PhD would choose this over either FAANG or a university.
A brand new research institute does none of these things for them. I don't see why a fresh PhD would choose this over either FAANG or a university.
I don't think it's fickle to want to make a decent living from your hard-earned and valuable skills.
Indeed, with a point of view like:
> as I am currently acquiring some real estate that I want to put to good use in Germany
> space to work rent-free
> LLC-like structure
It sounds like the poster's head is not in the game at all. Like what instead of buying a literally useless building, you just pay people?
> as I am currently acquiring some real estate that I want to put to good use in Germany
> space to work rent-free
> LLC-like structure
It sounds like the poster's head is not in the game at all. Like what instead of buying a literally useless building, you just pay people?
Hi,
not to go into too much detail on a public forum. In part of a larger deal for real estate that I do have commercial use for, some other buildings will be included that I could either rent out or use for a charitable purpose. It's all or nothing for the deal. I actually contemplated renting them out and using the proceeds to donate to another institution. If this can instead be used to provide young PhD students with a place to live rent-free there is no taxation inbetween, which would be subtracted from what they might receive via another institution.
Honestly, I mostly want to do some good with this in a way that has limited downside, and hope for the general concentration of creative career-starters with some communal infrastructure to result in a great place to live for everybody involved.
From your opening question and follow up, I am not clear on whether you really hope to create an institute, a limited duration retreat, a venue to host such things, or even a housing village and/or coworking space. But, from my US perspective, I might not appreciate the local issues you face.
An academic institute, as I take it, is a sustainable organization that necessarily needs to think about funding and recruitment. It is not just a building or a community, but a host organization to support ongoing fund-seeking activities as well as providing the environment for academic interaction. In the US, these are often soft-money and so the senior researchers are writing proposals and bringing in funding to support themselves and the staff working under them. Overhead taken from such grants and contracts supports the host organization and can circle back to cover gaps in funding or new-business development efforts by the researchers. Other matching funds might be used to help bootstrap an institute (or a strategic expansion), but I think that self-sustainability is the typical operating mode.
Recruitment needs to consider the opportunity costs that your candidates are facing to join you. The "cheap labor" of grad students and postdocs are not available to anybody who wants to pay the same rate as a university. The candidate is expecting to benefit from the prestige, experience, and social network when they take such a position. They need to see a path where this period of sacrifice helps secure their future career. Regular research staff, already in their career, would expect fair compensation. A place with no reputation is higher risk, and probably needs higher compensation to attract the same talent. Also, I think academics are usually a bit risk-averse or otherwise have a different cost-benefit model compared to those who would rush into industry, startups, or entrepreneurial adventures.
I joined an institute in the US which was formed slightly before I was born, and to date I've experienced over 40 percent of its life and mine on the research staff. As I was told, it started as a small set of researchers who identified a problem area and potential funding source. They shopped around for a university willing to be their parent organization, to provide the administrative, HR, and legal support needed to take the money and pursue the research agenda. By the time I joined, almost 25 years later, the division that inherited the agenda of that first group was perhaps only one fifth or less of the total institute in terms staff or funding levels.
An academic institute, as I take it, is a sustainable organization that necessarily needs to think about funding and recruitment. It is not just a building or a community, but a host organization to support ongoing fund-seeking activities as well as providing the environment for academic interaction. In the US, these are often soft-money and so the senior researchers are writing proposals and bringing in funding to support themselves and the staff working under them. Overhead taken from such grants and contracts supports the host organization and can circle back to cover gaps in funding or new-business development efforts by the researchers. Other matching funds might be used to help bootstrap an institute (or a strategic expansion), but I think that self-sustainability is the typical operating mode.
Recruitment needs to consider the opportunity costs that your candidates are facing to join you. The "cheap labor" of grad students and postdocs are not available to anybody who wants to pay the same rate as a university. The candidate is expecting to benefit from the prestige, experience, and social network when they take such a position. They need to see a path where this period of sacrifice helps secure their future career. Regular research staff, already in their career, would expect fair compensation. A place with no reputation is higher risk, and probably needs higher compensation to attract the same talent. Also, I think academics are usually a bit risk-averse or otherwise have a different cost-benefit model compared to those who would rush into industry, startups, or entrepreneurial adventures.
I joined an institute in the US which was formed slightly before I was born, and to date I've experienced over 40 percent of its life and mine on the research staff. As I was told, it started as a small set of researchers who identified a problem area and potential funding source. They shopped around for a university willing to be their parent organization, to provide the administrative, HR, and legal support needed to take the money and pursue the research agenda. By the time I joined, almost 25 years later, the division that inherited the agenda of that first group was perhaps only one fifth or less of the total institute in terms staff or funding levels.
No, but there's often a trade-off between making a decent living as a cog in a machine, or living on ramen and working on what you want to work on. I've chosen both at various phases of life.
Was just talking about this with a post-doc in the lab I've joined. He was saying there's poor and then there's poor. Without downplaying the fact that post-docs are underpaid, there are many benefits. You get to work on something you're interested in; in many labs you have almost complete schedule freedom; you typically have good medical benefits, etc. So there's a lot of freedom. As in industry, a lot of the experience depends on whom you're working for, but moreso due to the recommendation requirements and power differential. If it's a bio-lab that expects butts in seats pipetting 9-6, that's outside of my experience.
Of course! I only meant that (in my experience) academics tend to be headstrong and idiosyncratic, they don't always respond to incentives the way you might expect.
I feel seen.
It often makes sense to delay gratification. Like working with someone who is very well known in the field for little pay, knowing that their backing will give you many more opportunities in the future than a job that pays more now. Same is true of many startups. You make less than you would working for a FAANG company, but the experience and social connections can be worth far more in the future. It's definitely a personal decision
Valuable skills will enable a decent living for sure.
why not cooperate with local research-institutions and try to get some part-time agreements with the tenured academics? It's Germany, so the the chances are good since the professors are always chasing grants. A permanent source of funding for some phd-students is attractive.
I will note I ended up at an institution (admittedly an academic one) that for my field is usually met with "Where?" because the funding allowed for some very nice quality of life considerations and more academic freedom/less pressure to support yourself with grants.
It's not impossible, but you do have to figure out ways to offset the risk and prestige hit.
It's not impossible, but you do have to figure out ways to offset the risk and prestige hit.
'watch the beauty of it' - this is not ballet or opera, there's only blood, sweat, and tears. If you don't have a bunch of like-minded people and don't roll up your sleeves to manage the organization, you'll end up with wasted/stolen money and broken ideals.
>'watch the beauty of it' - this is not ballet or opera, there's only blood, sweat, and tears.
If you think ballet isn't blood, sweat, and tears then you're gravely mistaken.
If you think ballet isn't blood, sweat, and tears then you're gravely mistaken.
He didn’t say it wasn’t, he only implied a ballet or opera will at least have some beauty at some point. A research institute will never approach anything resembling beauty, its 100% blood, sweat, and tears.
Why would you say that "a research institute will never approach anything resembling beauty"? Researchers in mathematics and physics often work with beauty and elegance in mind. I, for one, work in math largely because of its beauty, and I hope to one day come up with something beautiful myself.
There are idealists out there who get all worked up with 'watch the beauty of it'. Yeah in practice it will devolve into blood, sweet and tears, but it matters that you have the right spirit and can appreciate the fleeting moments of beauty
Plus research going in as many directions as you have members of your institute rather than leading towards someplace intentional.
Sounds like a university.
https://ceealar.org/ is the closest that comes to mind for what you have in mind. Basically, they give room and board to people doing valuable effective altruist work
https://newscience.org/ might also be interesting
https://newscience.org/ might also be interesting
Thanks so much for the links! Joining something along these lines was something that I'd been considering, and it's a push in the right direction.
I was a PhD student at a newly started research institute (started about two years before I joined). I really liked the place.
The number one question is how to motivate people to join. For us PhD students, the motivation was 1) a salary and 2) top notch professors.
For the professors the motivation was access to infrastructure and a pretty substantial research budget. There was no prestige since it was an all new institution. Every professor that joined got a budget big enough to cover their own salary for five years, the salary of two or three PhD students, all the lab equipment they needed, etc. And of course they also got access to shared resources, like meeting rooms, microscopy lab, etc.
So if you can't offer a big budget to attract a professor/principal investigator, I'm not sure who would join?
The number one question is how to motivate people to join. For us PhD students, the motivation was 1) a salary and 2) top notch professors.
For the professors the motivation was access to infrastructure and a pretty substantial research budget. There was no prestige since it was an all new institution. Every professor that joined got a budget big enough to cover their own salary for five years, the salary of two or three PhD students, all the lab equipment they needed, etc. And of course they also got access to shared resources, like meeting rooms, microscopy lab, etc.
So if you can't offer a big budget to attract a professor/principal investigator, I'm not sure who would join?
I have very extensive experience on this topic and I’m happy to talk to you about it – you can find me on Twitter as doctorBaytas.
Background: I started my graduate studies in human-computer interaction design on the inaugural research team of a brand new lab, which turned into a research center that employed 4 faculty and their research groups. When this happened I became the coordinator (the only administrative employee) of the center, and effectively took care of all of the founding documentation, moving into a new space, hiring technical staff, communications, etc. I did this job officially for 2 years (unofficially for 3, since I started before the institution existed).
Background: I started my graduate studies in human-computer interaction design on the inaugural research team of a brand new lab, which turned into a research center that employed 4 faculty and their research groups. When this happened I became the coordinator (the only administrative employee) of the center, and effectively took care of all of the founding documentation, moving into a new space, hiring technical staff, communications, etc. I did this job officially for 2 years (unofficially for 3, since I started before the institution existed).
Research institutes without a stable stream of new phd students every year tend to stagnate. Then they become mere displays of alten venerable greybeards. "Great minds" do not assemble, as you seem to mean. Young people become great by their interaction with experts that they learn to surpass.
I'm watching this happen right now under my eyes here (U.S.). The director decides who gets in or not, favor friends and nothing is made for young people (there are none anyway). This is just a name, with names behind it and a website listing past achievements (that were made by others long gone) and false promises.
Sounds a lot like "science progresses one funeral at a time"
Scrolling around the comments, I'm not seeing much discussion about funding. Are billionaire friends a requirement to set up an independent research organization?
Asking as an engineering PhD doing what feels like gopher work for big companies. I have armchair dreams and ideas for doing research again, but I've never been clear on how one would get that first grant.
Also, as an alternative to a purely academic route, is it practical to create an institute focused on more worldly things like patents or consulting?
I imagine a professional network would be key no matter what path you take!
Asking as an engineering PhD doing what feels like gopher work for big companies. I have armchair dreams and ideas for doing research again, but I've never been clear on how one would get that first grant.
Also, as an alternative to a purely academic route, is it practical to create an institute focused on more worldly things like patents or consulting?
I imagine a professional network would be key no matter what path you take!
In the US, universities use the term "Institute" mostly as marketing. They can take existing related units and organizations within the uni and package them under the term Institute for the purposes of creating a single cohesive brand for said discrete parts. The point of this is to be able to more easily solicit funding now that you have a more cohesive description of these areas under one identifier. It sounds strange, but after seeing it work first hand I get it now, it can also help fund areas that may be underfunded.
So, taking that knowledge, you can potentially collaborate with other existing organizations to help build your institute "brand" which can help further your mission. You might consider a discrete research lab as a separate entity under your broader institute brand. Collaborating with other existing groups is a powerful way to amplify your impact as well as easy publicity for your larger mission.
Just some food for thought.
So, taking that knowledge, you can potentially collaborate with other existing organizations to help build your institute "brand" which can help further your mission. You might consider a discrete research lab as a separate entity under your broader institute brand. Collaborating with other existing groups is a powerful way to amplify your impact as well as easy publicity for your larger mission.
Just some food for thought.
This. I was also surprised to learn a lot (most?) "Institutes" at universities were just a website and a bank account. The host institution handles most of the overhead like buildings and HR for a ~30% take. I don't mean this in a negative way, it actually makes sense.
Note that this isn't necessarily true. There are often two large differences between "Institutes" (or Centers, etc. - nomenclature differs from university to university):
- Soft funding. Meaning very little to no support from the university. If you can't keep the money coming in, the Institute goes away (As do its employees).
- Institute faculty may or may not have other appointments - but Institutes often can't do things like grant tenure.
- Soft funding. Meaning very little to no support from the university. If you can't keep the money coming in, the Institute goes away (As do its employees).
- Institute faculty may or may not have other appointments - but Institutes often can't do things like grant tenure.
I started a research institute. Our goal was to find out how to center divs in css.
Sir, I find this of great interest and a noble pursuit. I would very much like to invest large sums of my newly created cryptocurrency in this. Have your people contact my people.
Hi, I'm Richard Brain, a farce for good in this world, and I want to shovel piles of my new POS CraptoCurrency "HOAX", the first high interest blockchain certificate of despotic (CD) offered to “stalkers”, into your centralized div laundering company!
Sir, please get in touch. Include the last 4-digits of your SSN so I can verify against my own records.
That's far beyond OP's already lofty ambitions, I'm afraid.
Your ideas are intriguing to me, and I wish to subscribe to your newsletter.
too hard, you might have a better chance in your endeavor by forking the web into 2 things.
- A web of apps: A (sand-boxed) VM environment that has the advantage of not having to install the programs locally and with a capability based model. this is already similar to what's already here but once you commit to it you can ditch the DOM and other things.
- A web of documents.
- A web of apps: A (sand-boxed) VM environment that has the advantage of not having to install the programs locally and with a capability based model. this is already similar to what's already here but once you commit to it you can ditch the DOM and other things.
- A web of documents.
I somehow created/found myself in a role that's similar to this? At present, we mostly build networking infrastructure for decentralization (Protocol Labs, started IPFS, libp2p, & Filecoin), but the long-term goal is to embed rights and values into the protocols by which people coordinate and communicate, and my team has interpreted this to include improving science as humanity's process for knowledge generation. As a result, I'm trying to lay the groundwork for a metascience institute. (We haven't been at it long enough that I'd say we've made a ton of progress, but we've got fun ambitions and our goals have been pretty well-received so far.)
There are lots of great points in this thread already, but one thing I'll emphasize is the importance of doing something that's important but would otherwise be neglected. Studying orgs like Bell Labs, Xerox PARC, DeepMind, & HHMI is great, but it's unlikely your budget is comparable to Google or the EU. However, rising experts (e.g. senior grad students, postdocs, and young profs) have fantastic ideas that they don't have the ability to pursue. Sometimes a topic isn't well funded or there's not a critical mass of interest in the field. However, unless you're a specialist, you're likely not well-equipped to identify a lot of those. I'd suggest reaching out to some experts, asking them to name great, young minds or rising stars in the field, and then ask those researchers about others that they respect or would love to work with - and whenever you meet someone ask "what research do you want to do but can't get funding for?" because every researcher has an answer to that question.
Additionally, here's some interesting people I know who will tweet about science organization: @adammarblestone, @michael_nielsen, @Ben_Reinhardt, @davidtlang, and @alexeyguzey.
Feel free to reach out - email is [username]@protocol.ai
There are lots of great points in this thread already, but one thing I'll emphasize is the importance of doing something that's important but would otherwise be neglected. Studying orgs like Bell Labs, Xerox PARC, DeepMind, & HHMI is great, but it's unlikely your budget is comparable to Google or the EU. However, rising experts (e.g. senior grad students, postdocs, and young profs) have fantastic ideas that they don't have the ability to pursue. Sometimes a topic isn't well funded or there's not a critical mass of interest in the field. However, unless you're a specialist, you're likely not well-equipped to identify a lot of those. I'd suggest reaching out to some experts, asking them to name great, young minds or rising stars in the field, and then ask those researchers about others that they respect or would love to work with - and whenever you meet someone ask "what research do you want to do but can't get funding for?" because every researcher has an answer to that question.
Additionally, here's some interesting people I know who will tweet about science organization: @adammarblestone, @michael_nielsen, @Ben_Reinhardt, @davidtlang, and @alexeyguzey.
Feel free to reach out - email is [username]@protocol.ai
You should look into the Ronin Institute. Since it is very hard or impossible to get grants without being affiliated with an institute, the Ronin Institute is a remote institute that any researcher can apply to join.
http://ronininstitute.org/
I think they've been pretty successful at attracting a network of interesting non-traditional researchers. I bet there are some good lessons there about how to grow an institute and bootstrap its prestige.
I think they've been pretty successful at attracting a network of interesting non-traditional researchers. I bet there are some good lessons there about how to grow an institute and bootstrap its prestige.
Contact administrator of closest Research Institute(s) and ask for a tour of the labs saying you want to sponsor research. That's the best way to meet the right people, hear the needs and figure out what will work. Put in 2-3 years doing the rounds and you will learn what it takes.
I have managed multiple research organizations, in businesses and academia.
Without a goal and process the institute will be a failure. It will fail to produce interesting results. It will fail to attract and grow talent. And it will fail to do well by the researchers who you are hoping to benefit.
In my own opinion, the best goal is something that you can derive a market signal for. For DeepMind, this was video game playing. For Paul Allen Institute, it is the ability to spin-off bets. If you try and sell something, you get a clear opinion of its value.
The process is also important. For a research institute, my suggestion is a periodic public interaction. There are many ways of garnering this; self-publishing reports, publishing in journals and conferences, attending (or better yet holding) conferences, increasing funding from public events, or seeking out collaborations with other institutions.
Without a goal and process the institute will be a failure. It will fail to produce interesting results. It will fail to attract and grow talent. And it will fail to do well by the researchers who you are hoping to benefit.
In my own opinion, the best goal is something that you can derive a market signal for. For DeepMind, this was video game playing. For Paul Allen Institute, it is the ability to spin-off bets. If you try and sell something, you get a clear opinion of its value.
The process is also important. For a research institute, my suggestion is a periodic public interaction. There are many ways of garnering this; self-publishing reports, publishing in journals and conferences, attending (or better yet holding) conferences, increasing funding from public events, or seeking out collaborations with other institutions.
You should read up on the Max Planck institutes in Germany, and on the Flatiron Institute in New York.
As others have said your problem will be attracting talent. You're best off organising free conferences, in collaboration with a MP, to start with.
As others have said your problem will be attracting talent. You're best off organising free conferences, in collaboration with a MP, to start with.
Flatiron itself has had struggles moving people out into academia (not counting joint positions it already has) so citing it might be the exception proving the rule
Pardon my ignorance, but what does MP mean in this context?
Perhaps, you may enjoy this collection - "The Overedge Catalog: New Types of Research Organizations" [1].
I think it has quite the variety, and may help you distill a broader sense of where things are headed (and find people to reach out to).
[1]: https://arbesman.net/overedge/
I think it has quite the variety, and may help you distill a broader sense of where things are headed (and find people to reach out to).
[1]: https://arbesman.net/overedge/
You might be interested in looking at the Recurse Center: https://www.recurse.com/
I might be able to point you to the right people for legal. I'm running companies in DE and US, doing a research cooperation with German universities and I've been to Brussels as part of the KnowARC EU project for building research cloud infrastructure.
But first, could you explain a bit more about your plans? Is your intention to acquire public funding? Or will this be for-profit research?
Who pays for patent applications? Who will own the patent rights?
Roughly what will be the initial budget for salaries? I.e. how many people do you plan to sign up and for how long?
But first, could you explain a bit more about your plans? Is your intention to acquire public funding? Or will this be for-profit research?
Who pays for patent applications? Who will own the patent rights?
Roughly what will be the initial budget for salaries? I.e. how many people do you plan to sign up and for how long?
I'm also interested in setting up research institutes. I'm obsessed with knowledge, I've built 2 companies (AI, robotics, Blockchain) and have a PhD in theoretical physics.
-The first one would focus on Automation, UBI and AGI. The goal is to actively accelerate the transition to a post-scarcity economy. The plan is to create, fund and invest in automation companies supported by the R&D of the institute. The goal is for this institute to be profit making.
-A second institute would fund fundamental research in math and physics, without any short term requirements to the researchers involved, not even publications. Researchers will be free to work on 100, 1000 or more long term projects. This a longer term project, since this institute would be funded externally, so a larger capital to sustain this would be needed.
I'm looking to fund researchers motivated by obsession for knowledge and genuine curiosity, uninterested in social status. Satoshi Nakamoto is a good example of the spirit which I look for: anonymously publishing ground breaking research without looking for recognition. Please reach out to lorenzo.pieri.research[at]gmail.com if you want to chat.
-The first one would focus on Automation, UBI and AGI. The goal is to actively accelerate the transition to a post-scarcity economy. The plan is to create, fund and invest in automation companies supported by the R&D of the institute. The goal is for this institute to be profit making.
-A second institute would fund fundamental research in math and physics, without any short term requirements to the researchers involved, not even publications. Researchers will be free to work on 100, 1000 or more long term projects. This a longer term project, since this institute would be funded externally, so a larger capital to sustain this would be needed.
I'm looking to fund researchers motivated by obsession for knowledge and genuine curiosity, uninterested in social status. Satoshi Nakamoto is a good example of the spirit which I look for: anonymously publishing ground breaking research without looking for recognition. Please reach out to lorenzo.pieri.research[at]gmail.com if you want to chat.
I'm just a dev, even burned out a little. Mostly because as a freelancer I lack passion-driving projects, and want something I can call my own, or maybe that helps others, or feels like I'm serving a purpose.
If you need help with any of these, I'd love to work on them. I'm mostly just web dev, but I've played with machine learning, python, tons of technologies from HN, and I'm not afraid to ditch web dev and go into robotics, etc.
I've often thought of how to maybe use crypto for UBI, imagine if you will every person can have 1 account, (there will be business accounts too, and I still need to work that out), but this 1 account has built in taxes for different levels of income. It also has a max where taxes are basically 100% -- which would be tied to the average wallet/savings of each unique person.
difficulties lie in: ensuring 1 unique wallet, etc.. figuring out decent minting amounts, getting it accepted for bread and other commodities that matter the most to the poor, etc. The idea though is nobody should be so poor they can't afford a roof, and nobody should be so rich they keep someone else from affording a roof...
Basically it'd outlaw billionaires (or whoever hits the pre-programmed but variable cap), it would divy out funds based on who has the least funds, and also who uses funds the most for regular purchases (more transactions == more ubi).
I'd also like to eventually research or work with researchers working on ai / consciousness theory, neuroscience, cog-sci. I'm interested in the concepts that Donald Hoffman is putting forth about proofs that we're in a simulation. If this is true, if there's a way to alter reality then because life is "the matrix", I think that'd be something pretty interesting to discover the "how"... and make it more accessible to people, without requiring 60+ years of living in a buddhist monastery.
Anyway, if you want to connect email me: [email protected]
If you need help with any of these, I'd love to work on them. I'm mostly just web dev, but I've played with machine learning, python, tons of technologies from HN, and I'm not afraid to ditch web dev and go into robotics, etc.
I've often thought of how to maybe use crypto for UBI, imagine if you will every person can have 1 account, (there will be business accounts too, and I still need to work that out), but this 1 account has built in taxes for different levels of income. It also has a max where taxes are basically 100% -- which would be tied to the average wallet/savings of each unique person.
difficulties lie in: ensuring 1 unique wallet, etc.. figuring out decent minting amounts, getting it accepted for bread and other commodities that matter the most to the poor, etc. The idea though is nobody should be so poor they can't afford a roof, and nobody should be so rich they keep someone else from affording a roof...
Basically it'd outlaw billionaires (or whoever hits the pre-programmed but variable cap), it would divy out funds based on who has the least funds, and also who uses funds the most for regular purchases (more transactions == more ubi).
I'd also like to eventually research or work with researchers working on ai / consciousness theory, neuroscience, cog-sci. I'm interested in the concepts that Donald Hoffman is putting forth about proofs that we're in a simulation. If this is true, if there's a way to alter reality then because life is "the matrix", I think that'd be something pretty interesting to discover the "how"... and make it more accessible to people, without requiring 60+ years of living in a buddhist monastery.
Anyway, if you want to connect email me: [email protected]
I've pursued personally-funded research for more than a year. Some thoughts:
Think about your competitive advantages. What makes working at your place different from a university and why would a researcher choose yours? It could be they don't like to teach. It could be that they want their life taken care off and you can hire a cook/cleaner/etc. for them. It could be that they don't like writing grants. Or they have trouble winning grants. (E.g., their topic is out of favor for various reasons.) It could be the freedom to work on anything. It could be the location. It could be that they could be the most senior person at your institute. Perhaps they want to start something new. It could be that they love that you think their research is valuable.
Your own institute has weaknesses, but they can be ameliorated. Make it easy to travel to. Putting it near a major university may help earn academic traffic and provide for collaboration.
One way to structure the institute is to have one good mind and many followers on. That is easy to bootstrap, once you get the good mind. The other sustainable structure is to pick a topic and have the largest most-focused group working on that topic. People will come for that, but getting it off the ground will be difficult. Perhaps you can a few good minds right after they get their PhDs and build around that team.
If the key is the people, I suggest you talk to the people. Find out what top researchers don't like about university life.
If you need a topic to focus on, I did research on formal proofs --- writing a mathematical proof on a computer. Every other industry has moved to digital, computer-aided design, except the field most suited to it! The way that mathematicians advance their careers in academia is working against the adoption of the technology. A place outside academia might make more progress in the area.
Think about your competitive advantages. What makes working at your place different from a university and why would a researcher choose yours? It could be they don't like to teach. It could be that they want their life taken care off and you can hire a cook/cleaner/etc. for them. It could be that they don't like writing grants. Or they have trouble winning grants. (E.g., their topic is out of favor for various reasons.) It could be the freedom to work on anything. It could be the location. It could be that they could be the most senior person at your institute. Perhaps they want to start something new. It could be that they love that you think their research is valuable.
Your own institute has weaknesses, but they can be ameliorated. Make it easy to travel to. Putting it near a major university may help earn academic traffic and provide for collaboration.
One way to structure the institute is to have one good mind and many followers on. That is easy to bootstrap, once you get the good mind. The other sustainable structure is to pick a topic and have the largest most-focused group working on that topic. People will come for that, but getting it off the ground will be difficult. Perhaps you can a few good minds right after they get their PhDs and build around that team.
If the key is the people, I suggest you talk to the people. Find out what top researchers don't like about university life.
If you need a topic to focus on, I did research on formal proofs --- writing a mathematical proof on a computer. Every other industry has moved to digital, computer-aided design, except the field most suited to it! The way that mathematicians advance their careers in academia is working against the adoption of the technology. A place outside academia might make more progress in the area.
I worked for a small think tank for a few years recently, there are tonnes of social science and policy outlets out there. It effectively operated as a social enterprise, it did a load of survey work for institutional clients (e.g. UN agencies) that paid the bills whilst the staff worked on their priorities on the side.
The way I'd approach the problem would be to set up a non profit or social enterprise, seek to build a core business and grant portfolio to keep the lights on and work from there.
From another perspective, I'm not entirely sure how OpenAI do things, but there may be insights for you in their approach.
You do really need to be thinking long term, you can either burn your own cash for a couple of years and quit with little to show, or build something durable over a period of decades. Reputation isn't something that appears overnight.
Germany seems a tough place to do it though. You'll need someone with a good head for paperwork.
The way I'd approach the problem would be to set up a non profit or social enterprise, seek to build a core business and grant portfolio to keep the lights on and work from there.
From another perspective, I'm not entirely sure how OpenAI do things, but there may be insights for you in their approach.
You do really need to be thinking long term, you can either burn your own cash for a couple of years and quit with little to show, or build something durable over a period of decades. Reputation isn't something that appears overnight.
Germany seems a tough place to do it though. You'll need someone with a good head for paperwork.
I've tried to do this, with partners and failed. Finding all the people with all the skills you need to get a prototype finished, LET ALONE a field-deployable-serviceable prototype at any level of "interesting scale" is absurdly complex and multi-facted.
In the US most research is targeted as selling things to the military. You might be better in Australia or any other country which offers more social funding for these types of things.
This thread has a lot of good ideas, I wish I'd seen it 5 years ago.
My current project might be useful for you: http://github.com/elasticdotventures/_b00t_
In the US most research is targeted as selling things to the military. You might be better in Australia or any other country which offers more social funding for these types of things.
This thread has a lot of good ideas, I wish I'd seen it 5 years ago.
My current project might be useful for you: http://github.com/elasticdotventures/_b00t_
"In the US most research is targeted as selling things to the military."
This strikes me as a very narrow perspective. Defense and Non-Defense R&D spending are about the same (https://www.aaas.org/sites/default/files/2020-10/DefNon.png) and the second largest funder of R&D is the NIH.
This strikes me as a very narrow perspective. Defense and Non-Defense R&D spending are about the same (https://www.aaas.org/sites/default/files/2020-10/DefNon.png) and the second largest funder of R&D is the NIH.
I have no direct experience but I have spent a lot of time thinking about how to realize my own dream of having an artist's residency -- which is actually a similar kind of thing, but temporary. I too am about to acquire the real estate, but don't have the rest set up yet.
One unsolved problem I keep returning to is that the limits of the offer will affect who will come join you. Unless you can give people their dream lab and a ton of money and publication then some of the people you want, will not be able to come even if they really do share your vision.
I think this is an inevitable compromise, but one that should be made very deliberately. Consider your dream researcher. Does she have a family? Can you get them to Germany on the appropriate visas with the mandatory health insurance? Will she have to quit her previous job? Can she afford to go without income for the duration of her research? If not, how much money does she need? What can her husband/wife do there? What if they have a child with special needs? Can they bring their three dogs? Can they be there three days a week? How will they get to Berlin?
For my project, I plan to start very small, since I don't really know what I'm doing and don't have too much money nor time to dedicate to it yet. You might consider doing that too: make the place really nice and get some people there for a shorter period of time, and figure out your growth strategy after you've gone through the mini version with some researchers, and have properly digested their feedback.
And put massive effort (and money assuming you have it) into promoting them and their work: the more it looks like Forschungszentrum Akhann is good for one's career, the more you'll have your choice of researchers.
That, and take care of your liability situation. It's not so bad in Germany as in the US, but consider the possiblity someone gets sucked into the flux capacitor while helping you with your research and it's kind of your fault. You don't want to lose the whole institute over it, nor the personal fortune that has let you set it up. Definitely find a good lawyer with relevant experience.
Good luck with it! I think the world needs more stuff like this.
One unsolved problem I keep returning to is that the limits of the offer will affect who will come join you. Unless you can give people their dream lab and a ton of money and publication then some of the people you want, will not be able to come even if they really do share your vision.
I think this is an inevitable compromise, but one that should be made very deliberately. Consider your dream researcher. Does she have a family? Can you get them to Germany on the appropriate visas with the mandatory health insurance? Will she have to quit her previous job? Can she afford to go without income for the duration of her research? If not, how much money does she need? What can her husband/wife do there? What if they have a child with special needs? Can they bring their three dogs? Can they be there three days a week? How will they get to Berlin?
For my project, I plan to start very small, since I don't really know what I'm doing and don't have too much money nor time to dedicate to it yet. You might consider doing that too: make the place really nice and get some people there for a shorter period of time, and figure out your growth strategy after you've gone through the mini version with some researchers, and have properly digested their feedback.
And put massive effort (and money assuming you have it) into promoting them and their work: the more it looks like Forschungszentrum Akhann is good for one's career, the more you'll have your choice of researchers.
That, and take care of your liability situation. It's not so bad in Germany as in the US, but consider the possiblity someone gets sucked into the flux capacitor while helping you with your research and it's kind of your fault. You don't want to lose the whole institute over it, nor the personal fortune that has let you set it up. Definitely find a good lawyer with relevant experience.
Good luck with it! I think the world needs more stuff like this.
I'm trying to build something like this myself. I acquired a huge building and am trying to set it up as a science museum, makerspace and business incubator. There will be on-site housing as well.
I'm calling it Serendipic.org.
I haven't had too much luck so far, but I've been working on it for a year and have had nothing but problems with zoning. I can't even get power turned on. They just don't understand what I'm trying to do, and can't comprehend that I don't have every detail of the entire project mapped out in minute detail yet.
I'm calling it Serendipic.org.
I haven't had too much luck so far, but I've been working on it for a year and have had nothing but problems with zoning. I can't even get power turned on. They just don't understand what I'm trying to do, and can't comprehend that I don't have every detail of the entire project mapped out in minute detail yet.
Do you know Marek Rosa? https://www.goodai.com/about/
His research grants and building in Prague have this same flavor.
His research grants and building in Prague have this same flavor.
I have a recent experience in exactly this and can connect you to folks from the RAND corporation who just founded a spinoff research think tank. Reach out to me via my email on my profile
Have you considered using the facilities and proximity to academic infrastructure to host academic conferences instead of full-time research? That might be a more realistic way to attract top talent when you are first starting. You would obviously want to do this in discussion with relevant nearby academic institutions, but being able to offer free accommodations for attendees + maybe some travel expenses could help to lure people for a week event, and a conference with the right attendees coming together can definitely benefit academic research.
A similar option would be to host classes or seminars on cutting edge research, taught by one or a few top researchers and attended by post-docs. Not full-time, but a way to start.
If researchers find it beneficial, if it's a conducive environment and the financials are right, if you master the role of "host," then you might be able to increase the number of conferences/seminars per year and, eventually, with a high-enough frequency, add full-time support staff and longer-term functionality (e.g., researcher-in-residence) that can lead to year-round activity.
Maybe this is a slow approach, but even one well-run conference can be beneficial and you'll be able to learn how to do this and make connections along the way.
A similar option would be to host classes or seminars on cutting edge research, taught by one or a few top researchers and attended by post-docs. Not full-time, but a way to start.
If researchers find it beneficial, if it's a conducive environment and the financials are right, if you master the role of "host," then you might be able to increase the number of conferences/seminars per year and, eventually, with a high-enough frequency, add full-time support staff and longer-term functionality (e.g., researcher-in-residence) that can lead to year-round activity.
Maybe this is a slow approach, but even one well-run conference can be beneficial and you'll be able to learn how to do this and make connections along the way.
I've been exploring the landscape of new types of research institutes/organizations, with a catalog of my findings here: https://arbesman.net/overedge/ I'm happy to discuss the possibilities for research orgs, so please feel free to reach out.
Where are you located in germany?
You might want to take a look at the Shuttleworth Foundation, the Forrest Research Foundation, and the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundations as templates.
They're all billionaire-funded foundations enabling research. Shuttleworth works outside traditional academia, the other two fund research in traditional pathways.
They're all billionaire-funded foundations enabling research. Shuttleworth works outside traditional academia, the other two fund research in traditional pathways.
You can consider setting up a joint centre with a university, it would help you inherit their prestige and access students/researchers and them getting funding. I work in a centre that has this strong companies/university collaboration and it's a model that can work well.
> End goal as of now: assemble a few great minds, give them the space to work rent-free in a region with good academic infrastructure, ideally let them collaborate, watch the beauty of it.
My advice is not to expect others to do the work for rent and a “stipend”.
This isn’t a game. AI done wrong will be the end of us.
My advice is not to expect others to do the work for rent and a “stipend”.
This isn’t a game. AI done wrong will be the end of us.
It's not like we will carelessly stumble upon world-ending technology. This is not a sci-fi movie.
I think we will build it with intent and should be careful with our intentions/attentions.
You are right. Sci-fi movies are short.
You are right. Sci-fi movies are short.
Yeah, we won't accidentally stumble upon it---we will painstakingly create one, with our best intentions in mind and while receiving accolades for it.
How do you know that exactly? On previous occasions, we humans have both carelessly stumbled across technology and have discovered world-ending technology.
You will need administrators, the people you are going to bring in are unlilely to have the experience to manage the institutional financial aspects of grants. Also most funding agencies will not give easily to places that are not recognized somehow (nor will reviewers).
A grant proposal would need to reassure the agency that the organization has the capacity to fulfil the promised research, so for a new organization without a track record of successful projects it will mostly hinge on the track record of the individual researchers they can attract; if OP can get some experienced PIs with big names and big CVs,then it would be plausible to get agency funding, but they will likely require nontrivial financial guarantees; but if they attract some fresh PhDs with "space to work rent-free" and a stipend, then yes, most funding agencies will not find their grant proposals competitive enough.
This. To use the NIH example, a new research institute is probably staring at some grim Environment scores for a bit.
I also look for such initiatives. We need something like the Invisible College [1]. And artificial life deserves more than a marginal interest, because is the gate towards understanding biological life as a computation.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Invisible_College
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Invisible_College
I'm building an invisible college in Berkeley and Hawaii, and happen to own the domain name: https://invisible.college.
If anyone's interested in putting this domain to better use, please reach out!
If anyone's interested in putting this domain to better use, please reach out!
Great! Nice to meet you.
You might find https://newscience.org/ interesting and relevant.
The founder, Alexey Guzey, is a very interesting person https://twitter.com/alexeyguzey
The founder, Alexey Guzey, is a very interesting person https://twitter.com/alexeyguzey
I've never started a research institute, but I've wanted to for a while. I figure if I were to ever win the lottery I'd start a research institute with the proceeds. Good luck!
[deleted]
Thanks for starting this discussion! I’m starting a small research foundation for studying the biology of aging. I’d be happy to keep in touch!
i did my postgrad at a research institute founded by a well known professor in his field. in the first instance you have to decide what research field/theme you want to target or are passionate about, then get lure leading academics in the field (scout them by published works or industry talks). feel free to get in touch if you want me to connect you.
Have you set up some sort of endowment? How are you ensuring long-term financial viability?
Very interesting idea. Keep us posted.
Its probably very specific to your country.
FTL travel? Is anyone looking into this?
I pursued something similar. I created the Tree Notation Lab in Oahu (https://lab.treenotation.org/), secured a physical home for it at a university, got funding commitments, started recruiting, and came close to pulling the trigger, but slowed down at the last moment circa January 2020.
The reason I hit the brakes were some specific incidents that made me realize how much I was underestimating how difficult recruiting, retaining, and enabling the level of talent I hoped for. I was probably underestimating those challenges by 2 orders of magnitude.
The majority of folks you'd want to recruit probably have great careers already and probably families, and are likely world class, so in today's market you'd need probably on the order of a $100M - $1B+ war-chest to be able to efficiently compete for them and not have recruitment and retainment as an urgent problem that would keep you up every night.
I instead pivoted and decided to make it a remote first, part time thing. I have a number of advisors and collaborators. New people pitch me ideas and I fund them or not. I sometimes put a few weeks in, sometimes just a day a month. I can scale it organically and pause it when I want. I can be an active part of other remote research groups as well. I made this decision pre-COVID, when it was more of a tossup, but now I'd say it's a no brainer.
If you're just looking to house a group of like minded people perhaps something like https://www.together.casa/ or https://www.pandopooling.com/ might be interesting to check out.
Happy to chat more too if that would be helpful. I definitely encourage you to go for it, as I think we need more of these, but at least for me the better bet was to start remote.
The reason I hit the brakes were some specific incidents that made me realize how much I was underestimating how difficult recruiting, retaining, and enabling the level of talent I hoped for. I was probably underestimating those challenges by 2 orders of magnitude.
The majority of folks you'd want to recruit probably have great careers already and probably families, and are likely world class, so in today's market you'd need probably on the order of a $100M - $1B+ war-chest to be able to efficiently compete for them and not have recruitment and retainment as an urgent problem that would keep you up every night.
I instead pivoted and decided to make it a remote first, part time thing. I have a number of advisors and collaborators. New people pitch me ideas and I fund them or not. I sometimes put a few weeks in, sometimes just a day a month. I can scale it organically and pause it when I want. I can be an active part of other remote research groups as well. I made this decision pre-COVID, when it was more of a tossup, but now I'd say it's a no brainer.
If you're just looking to house a group of like minded people perhaps something like https://www.together.casa/ or https://www.pandopooling.com/ might be interesting to check out.
Happy to chat more too if that would be helpful. I definitely encourage you to go for it, as I think we need more of these, but at least for me the better bet was to start remote.
I don't know anything about it, but being just one island over I've heard of the Pacific Science Institute, which may be something like you are trying to do ( https://www.pacificscienceinstitute.org/)
There's also some great online research communities, like the https://futureofcoding.org/ slack.
There's also some great online research communities, like the https://futureofcoding.org/ slack.
[deleted]
Not seeking a particular piece of advice, more looking for somebody to have a conversation with regarding experiences, what worked really well, how to get the ball rolling, essential infrastructure required...
End goal as of now: assemble a few great minds, give them the space to work rent-free in a region with good academic infrastructure, ideally let them collaborate, watch the beauty of it.
If relevant, an LLC-like structure is available for making this happen, but not 100% sold on how to approach this from a legal perspective.