"No strings attached" seems a bit disingenuous too if it requires taking aptitude and psychometric tests.

I read it as "no strings attached on how you execute or spend once funded". They can still do their selection any way they see fit (otherwise it would be either first come first serve or random, neither of which is a good funding model). My 2c.

Correct! Most importantly, there are no strings attached in terms of any IP rights on whatever you create.

Actually, randomly could be a good funding model. https://arxiv.org/pdf/1802.07068.pdf

Well, they need to train their AI project on something, right?

"We can pay you $2,500, and you'll still be the product"

The beauty of AI work today - the technology has finally become accessible. You've got OpenCV, TensorFlow, Caffe - with tons of well-documented models and working examples. You can run them on your consumer GPU and get real, practical results.

Now, I can understand Google trying to be the platform of choice (when in reality, you don't "need" them to build AI), and I can understand startups like CrowdFlower trying to get embedded in that process - but these .orgs need to be more upfront about their agendas.

I guess "in minutes" is subjective.

Well, 7 hours are also some amount of minutes.

How many minutes are there in a day?

Thanks for that feedback! Since we’re hoping to scale the program one day, we’re looking for better ways to identify scientists we should support. That additional test is just an experiment.

We need to do a better job communicating that upfront. Will fix now. Thanks again. Some things you can only learn from talking to your users...

I guess there's no free lunch...