EDGE AI POD
Discover the cutting-edge world of energy-efficient machine learning, edge AI, hardware accelerators, software algorithms, and real-world use cases with this podcast feed from all things in the world's largest EDGE AI community.
These are shows like EDGE AI TALKS, EDGE AI BLUEPRINTS as well as EDGE AI FOUNDATION event talks on a range of research, product and business topics.
Join us to stay informed and inspired!
EDGE AI POD
The Pipeline Is Stalling: America's Declining Innovation Edge
America's innovation pipeline stands at a dangerous crossroads. Federal research funding has dropped 10% in real terms over the past decade, traditional public-private collaboration models are fragmenting, and barriers to international talent continue to rise. These challenges threaten the three-pillar foundation that has powered American technological leadership for generations.
Our conversation dives deep into Harvard University Professor Vijay Janapa Reddi's compelling analysis of this critical situation. The statistics are striking: researchers have lost 26% of their purchasing power since 2014, forcing tough choices about graduate positions, equipment purchases, and research directions. Meanwhile, 79% of computer science graduate students are international, underscoring our reliance on global talent. When 55% of billion-dollar American startups have immigrant founders, restrictive immigration policies amount to what experts call "national self-sabotage."
The impacts extend far beyond elite institutions. America's innovation ecosystem encompasses land-grant universities, HBCUs, community colleges, and state flagships - all dependent on stable federal support. The Edge AI Foundation, where Professor Reddy serves on the board, exemplifies one promising response: creating structured collaboration between universities and industry on emerging technologies like neuromorphic computing and edge-based AI. This approach helps bridge the crucial gap between academic research and commercial application.
Revitalizing our innovation ecosystem demands a coordinated strategy: expanded industry consortia with federal matching funds, innovation co-labs on university campuses, dedicated STEM green cards, streamlined visa processes, and predictable research funding increases. The stakes couldn't be higher - our economic future and technological leadership hang in the balance. How might you contribute to rebuilding America's innovation pipeline? Explore more through the People's Pledge for American Higher Education and join the conversation about securing our innovative future.
➡️ Visit HERE to read The Pipeline Is Stalling whitepaper
➡️ Visit HERE to sign the pledge
Learn more about the EDGE AI FOUNDATION - edgeaifoundation.org
Welcome to the Deep Dive. Today we're getting into something really critical for us the state of our innovation pipeline, Especially in community communities.
Speaker 2:Our guide here is a person by the name of Greg. The pipeline is strong. Why America is the pipeline, thank you. So let's jump in. Professor Reddy talks about this historical model, this foundation for US innovation. What were the main parts? Okay, yeah, he lays this historical model, this foundation for US innovation. What were?
Speaker 1:the main parts. Okay, yeah, he lays out three pillars essentially. First was sustained federal money for basic research, the really fundamental stuff.
Speaker 2:Right, not necessarily aiming for an immediate product, but building that knowledge base.
Speaker 1:Second, strong links between universities, public institutions and private industry, Getting ideas from the lab out into the world.
Speaker 2:Uh-huh, and the third.
Speaker 1:An open door, basically Welcoming international talent, the best minds from everywhere to study and work here.
Speaker 2:Okay, so those three pillars were key, but the article argues they're well, they're under pressure now.
Speaker 1:Yeah, pretty much right away. Let's take federal funding first. The headline numbers might look okay, but there's more to it.
Speaker 2:Oh, absolutely. It's that classic nominal versus real value thing. So the amount of funding nominally went up between 2014 and 2024 by about 21, 22%, but factor in inflation what those dollars actually buy. That figure dropped by almost 10% in real terms. The article's figure four shows it starkly. Over that decade, researchers effectively lost about 26% of their buying power.
Speaker 1:That's huge. So more dollars, but they don't go nearly as far. What does that mean on the ground, in the labs?
Speaker 2:Well, it means tough choices. The article mentions fewer slots for graduate students, putting off buying necessary new equipment.
Speaker 1:Makes sense.
Speaker 2:And maybe shifting focus to safer, shorter-term projects that are more likely to get funded quickly. Plus, getting grants from places like the NSF or NIH is already really competitive low success rates. This just tightens the screws.
Speaker 1:Right, okay. What about the second pillar, public-private?
Speaker 2:collaboration. How's that changing? The shift seems to be towards more transactional relationships, more short-term goals.
Speaker 1:Less like the old Bell Labs model or the early days of the SRC, the Semiconductor Research Corporation.
Speaker 2:Exactly. There used to be perhaps more industry willingness to invest in that fundamental pre-competitive research, the stuff that lifts the whole field. Now, it seems, the focus is often on things closer to market.
Speaker 1:Which could mean that really basic, foundational science gets less support from industry.
Speaker 2:That's the concern, yeah, and that foundational work is well fundamental.
Speaker 1:And the third pillar, international talent. This feels incredibly important, especially for STEM fields.
Speaker 2:It really is. The numbers in the article are quite striking. Like, 79 percent of computer science grad students are international 79 percent. And 81 percent in electrical engineering. These students and scholars are, you know, a huge part of the research engine in universities.
Speaker 1:And their impact goes way beyond academia, doesn't it? The article talks about founders, ceos, oh, definitely.
Speaker 2:Something like 55 percent of US billion-dollar startups unicorns had immigrants as founders or co-founders.
Speaker 1:You think of Google's Sergey Brin, Microsoft's Satya Nadella, Alphabet's Sundar Pichai, NVIDIA's Jensen Huang? The list goes on.
Speaker 2:Right and even in the latest AI boom OpenAI, databricks, anthic. Figure three in the piece shows immigrant co-founded AI companies pulling in vastly more funding, like $118 billion versus $7 billion for others as of early 2025. It's a massive contribution.
Speaker 1:So putting up barriers to this talent. The article calls it national self-sabotage. Pretty strong words.
Speaker 2:It is strong, but you can see the logic. There's even research cited suggesting that for every three international students we educate, an American job is eventually created.
Speaker 1:So making it hard for them to stay isn't just bad for innovation, it's potentially bad for the economy overall.
Speaker 2:That's the argument. We invest in educating them, then potentially push that talent away.
Speaker 1:Professor Reddy also makes a point that this innovation system isn't just, you know, harvard and MIT, it's much wider.
Speaker 2:Absolutely Crucial point. It's a whole ecosystem Land-grant universities, HBCUs, community colleges, state flagships they're all part of this.
Speaker 1:And they all rely on that federal support we were talking about.
Speaker 2:Largely yes, for research, for training students who then go into industry. And university endowments even the big ones, can't just step in and cover everything. There are rules about how that money can be used.
Speaker 1:So a dip in federal funding doesn't just hit the top tier, it ripples out everywhere.
Speaker 2:Exactly. The whole pipeline can get sluggish if the funding isn't there. It's all interconnected.
Speaker 1:The article also mentioned how the government's share of R&D funding has changed over time.
Speaker 2:Yeah, quite dramatically. By 2020, that was down to about 21 percent and universities themselves are picking up more of the tab, about 25 percent in 2021.
Speaker 1:So less real federal money and a smaller share of the total pie. Yeah, that puts a lot of pressure on universities.
Speaker 2:A double whammy, in a way.
Speaker 1:And then there's the whole geopolitical angle, restrictions on international collaboration yeah, that must be tricky to navigate.
Speaker 2:Oh, it's a real balancing act. You obviously need security, no-transcript university links and big corporate R&D spending.
Speaker 1:What's the common element?
Speaker 2:Diversified funding seems key. Not relying on just one source, it builds resilience and also strong connections between the players government, academia, industry.
Speaker 1:OK. So, based on the problems of these international examples, the article lays out a strategy for the US, a multi-pronged approach.
Speaker 2:Right, it's not just one fix. One idea is expanding industry consortia, kind of like the old SRC for semiconductors, but for new areas.
Speaker 1:Like an SRC for AI.
Speaker 2:Something like that Getting companies to pool resources to fund university research in AI, quantum biotech, maybe with federal matching funds. He mentions things like ML Commons and, significantly, the Edge AI Foundation as existing efforts to build on.
Speaker 1:Ah, ok, the Edge AI Foundation. This connects directly to our Edge AI focus. How does the article see its role?
Speaker 2:It's highlighted specifically as a model for that needed industry academia collaboration, particularly in Edge AI, and it's worth noting, professor Reddy himself is on their board.
Speaker 1:Oh interesting. So he's directly involved.
Speaker 2:Yes, which underscores the importance he places on it. The foundation is creating ways for universities and companies to work together on specific edge AI challenges. Things like neuromorphic computing, tiny ML, physical AI, even generative AI on the edge.
Speaker 1:So it's a concrete example of strengthening those university industry ties in a critical emerging field.
Speaker 2:Exactly, it directly addresses that need.
Speaker 1:Beyond these consortium foundations, what other ways are suggested to boost that connection?
Speaker 2:Things like expanding industrial liaison programs at universities, creating innovation co-labs where company researchers can physically work on campus.
Speaker 1:Like embedded researchers.
Speaker 2:Sort of yeah, and developing more university advanced research parks to cluster corporate R&D near academic hubs, just generally making it easier for ideas and people to flow back and forth.
Speaker 1:What about money from other sources, like philanthropy or endowments?
Speaker 2:The article suggests exploring that, maybe matching programs to encourage private donations for STEM research and encouraging universities with large endowments to allocate more internally for riskier exploratory research.
Speaker 1:But with a caveat.
Speaker 2:Yes, a caution against over-reliance on corporate linked funding. You still need that stable base of public investment for independence and diversity in research directions.
Speaker 1:Makes sense. And then there's the talent retention piece keeping the brilliant people we educate here.
Speaker 2:Crucial. A big proposal is a dedicated STEM green card. Basically, If you earn an advanced STEM degree here, you get permanent residency.
Speaker 1:That seems straightforward.
Speaker 2:Conceptually yes. Also expanding H-1B visas for PhD-level researchers, streamlining visa processes for professors and students on exchange, just making it less difficult for talent to stay and contribute.
Speaker 1:And back to federal funding, the need for stability and supporting basic science comes up again strongly.
Speaker 2:Absolutely Predictable. Budget increases for agencies like NSF and DARPA are key. Maybe even a dedicated trust fund for science Trust fund Interesting.
Speaker 1:And really emphasizing support for that fundamental curiosity-driven research. That's where the really big breakthroughs often come from, even if you can't predict them. Plus, looking again at policies that might be overly restrictive on how research funds can be used. The article also mentions new kinds of institutions, hybrid models.
Speaker 2:Yeah, the idea of US innovation institutes, maybe located near universities but with more flexibility in hiring an IP. They'd focus on bridging that gap between basic university research and corporate R&D.
Speaker 1:Tackling those medium-term challenges.
Speaker 2:Potentially yes, along with designating regional innovation hubs to spread the economic benefits more widely.
Speaker 1:OK, quite a comprehensive list. Let's bring it back specifically to edge AI. How do these big challenges funding talent hit that field?
Speaker 2:Well, edge AI relies heavily on advances in things like efficient algorithms, new types of low power hardware. That requires basic research. So cuts in real federal funding directly slow that down.
Speaker 1:And the talent pipeline.
Speaker 2:Hugely important for edge AI. Like we said, many top researchers in AI and related hardware fields are international students. If we make it hard for them to come here or stay here, we're directly hindering our own progress in edge AI development and deployment.
Speaker 1:And this is where something like the edgy GA foundation comes in again, exactly, development and deployment, and this is where something like the EDGE, ega Foundation comes in again.
Speaker 2:Exactly. It's working to directly counteract some of these challenges within the EDGE AI space by fostering those specific industry academia links.
Speaker 1:Providing those collaboration points. We talked about neuromorphic tiny ML.
Speaker 2:Right Connecting the university research to the companies that need those breakthroughs for actual products. Professor Reddy's involvement really highlights how crucial these kinds of focused efforts are seen to be. They help translate the research into reality.
Speaker 1:This has been incredibly useful really mapping out the situation. So, boiling it down, what are the absolute key takeaways?
Speaker 2:I'd say first, the US innovation system is facing real strains on those three pillars. Federal funding isn't keeping pace in real terms. Industry collaboration is shifting and attracting and retaining global talent is becoming more challenging.
Speaker 1:And these aren't separate problems. They're all linked.
Speaker 2:Totally linked. Second fixing. This requires a coordinated effort. Government, industry, academia all need to be involved. It's not just one group's problem.
Speaker 1:And specific actions are needed.
Speaker 2:Sustained investment in basic research, smarter policies for international talent and really building those strong public-private partnerships, like the work being done by the Edge AI Foundation in its specific area.
Speaker 1:For you listening. We hope this deep dive has given you a solid framework for thinking about this complex ecosystem. It's about understanding the forces at play without getting lost in every single detail.
Speaker 2:Yeah, and maybe a final thought to chew on how could a really thriving edge AI ecosystem supported by these kinds of changes impact your world, your work?
Speaker 1:Right. What role could different people or organizations play individuals, companies, policymakers in making sure that innovation pipeline for edge, ai and beyond stay strong?
Speaker 2:It's something worth considering.
Speaker 1:If you want to explore more, the article mentions the People's Pledge for American Higher Education. You can check that out at bitly higher end pledge. Thanks for joining us for this deep dive.