Spending on AI vs theoretical physics in academia I hope this question may fit this site:

My friends and I were having an argument based loosely on these two opposing views. One side claims that there is too much spending and financial backing by governments on research in non-applied areas. By "non-applied" I mean that given that we answer the question originally proposed there is no practical real-world application forthcoming from it. The example used most often was high-energy physics and the standard model.

The opposing view claims that the funding (by governments, but subtract defence costs for instance) for theoretical research is already comparatively low, taken against research in engineering or applied sciences.

Question:

How can we compare these claims? The closest source I found online is from the OECD:

https://stats.oecd.org/Index.aspx?DataSetCode=ONRD_COST

These charts however do not break expenditure on natural sciences into subfields.

Also, please share opinions backed by some stats, please!
History is generally on the side of pure government subsidized research.  There are some ideas or projects so far removed from possible commercialisation or such risky for private enterprise that it only makes sense for governments to fund these. 

The most obvious example is electricity.


  “Why, sir, there is every probability that you will soon be able to
  tax it.”


The quote is attributed to Michael Faraday in reply to William Gladstone, then British Chancellor of the Exchequer (minister of finance), when asked of the practical value of electricity in 1850.  The quote is disputed but still relevant to illustrate the general point that some of the most fruitful ideas originated in research of no apparent utility.

Another example would be X-rays and a more recent example would be the laser, "a solution in search of a problem" according to its inventor T. Maiman (who at the time was working for a private firm).

On a more abstract level, Robert Wilson, appearing in front of a panel to lobby in favour of a new accelerator at Fermilab, declared


  In that sense, this new knowledge has all to do with honor and country but it has nothing to do directly with defending our country except to help make it worth defending.


Overall, the investments in basic sciences have funded generations of graduate students who have gone on to be productive (and tax paying) members of society.  Giving a bit of $$ to pure research keeps researchers (often time university faculty) busy outside of class times, enriches courses and trains or exposes future professionals to cutting edge technology and concepts.  Even with an extremely low probability of success (intolerable to private enterprise), a single breakthrough will pay for itself many many times over.