At least they try to avoid nepotistic stagnation–it’s a key pillar of what makes arpa arpa–what other institutions can boast of that?
Both DARPA and ARPA-E have faced challenges when they under-take multigenerational technology development. In other words, with term-limited program managers, once a program manager nurtures an area how is it sustained after he or she departs, and then built on and moved to the next related set of advances? IARPA has to deal with this problem as well. IARPA program managers often recruit their replacements. Contract employees at IARPA who support the program managers often serve as the institutional memory across multiple program managers.
We’re talking about a working swamp-avoidance system here. I can’t really think of many ways that would make the world a better place than that general directedness of thought, just needs to be perfected. You hear a lot about draining the swamp (well not enough)- you don’t hear very much about how to avoid swamps in the first place. Maybe we need an ARPA dedicated to that? “Maybe?” HAHA! DARPA’s focus on robotics is the dead giveaway that they’re infested with swamplings. Nothing “high-risk” or “disruptive” about that, that’s the safest segment in GRIN. Reminds me of the AI people- you’re playing it safe, don’t bother trying to fool me.