Total US wealth is ~170T so obviously it will be enough to cover federal and state government for a year (and more like 20 years).
Even considering obvious issue of wealth going down like crazy in such hypothetical scenario in its ends this would be enough. Because in the end it’s all part of same economy.
That’s including everyone. The wealth of U.S. billionaires is about $8 trillion total, while the government at all levels spends about $10 trillion annually.
You missed the "total wealth of U.S. billionaires". The billionaires own a tiny fraction of total US wealth. Most of the wealth is owned by people like me, who own a house, and stocks in retirement account.
However billionaires don’t own tiny part of US wealth, more like 5%-10%. And top 1% (and grandparent was talking about rich people) own 1/3 of US wealth.
The point is that billionaire wealth is not that much compared to the government’s current spending, much less what you’d need to support large numbers of immigrants on welfare (as suggested by OP above).
The top 1% have a lot more, but the cutoff for that is $11 million, and that includes home equity, family farms, etc. The bulk of those people are retired professionals and small business owners. For example, 4% of 75-79 year olds are in the top 1% of wealth. These are rich people, but not the kind of rich that AOC is talking about taxing.
I’m a huge supporter of taxing upper middle class people, but we should just tax them instead of playing games about wealth. The top 5%, that is people making above $260,000 a year, have an income of $5.6 trillion a year. They only pay $1.3 trillion in income taxes. Just double that.
While I mostly agree with you, it worth noting modern llms are trained on 10-20-30T of tokens which is quite comparable to their size (especially given how compressible the data is)
It's not an issue of warmup time, it's an issue of jit compilation.
On my server (AMD EPYC 7252):
1) base time of the java program from the repo is 3.23s (which is ~2 worse than the one in linked page, so I assume my cpu is about 2 slower, and corresponding best c++ result will be ~450ms
2) if you count from inside of java program you get 3.17s (so about 60ms of overhead)
3) but if you run it 10 times (inside of same java program) you cut this time to 1570ms
It's still much slower than c++ version, but it's between rust and go. And this is not me optimizing something, it's only measuring things correctly.
update: running vector version of java code from same repo brings runtime to 392ms which is literally fastest out of all solutions including c++.
update2: ran c++ version on same hardware, it takes 400ms, so I would say it's fair to say c++ and vectorized java are on par (and given "allows vectorization" comment in cpp code I assume that's the best one can get out of it).
There might be more than one reason for an ongoing crisis, and different takes on who’s responsible. However Maduro is responsible of huge number of refugees fleeing Venezuela, and we (and some other countries around) have some obligations to help asylum seekers.
Language is just a form, what exactly is encoded inside of the model can be very different. And to encode logical reasoning inside of the weights with activation functions is more than possible.
Models solving IMO level problems imo proves it.
I also think you greatly overestimate human intelligence, the fact we got AGI is nothing but barely side effect of evolution.
Isn’t this what Tao is addressing in the link, that LLMs haven’t encoded reasoning? Success in IMO is misleading because they are synthetic problems with known solutions that are subject to contamination (answers to similar questions are available in the textbooks and online).
He also discusses his view on the similarity and differences between mathematics and natural language.Tao says mathematics is driven entirely by efficiency, so presumably using natural language to do mathematics is a step backwards.
This being said in this setup of 2-4 h100 you’ll be able to generate with batch size of somewhere around 128 ie its 128 humans and not one. And just like that difference in efficiency isn’t that high anymore.
Would you rather be treated (medically) by the first 2000 people? Do you think code will be written better by the first 2000? I get being unhappy about current political class, but this kind of claims is wild to me.
Politicians aren't making technical choices. They make value judgments.
Not it's raining should I wear galoshes but, should I wear blue or red pants? Not should I buy a sports car or an SUV but do I want to do the things you can do with a sports car or the things you can do with an SUV?
It can get confusing because experts can help inform value judgments but they don't have anymore weight on making them then any other person.
When it comes to those choices having a random selection of a large group instead of a small selection of a group of "experts" is at least an arguable point of view.
> In the original comparison second category of people have much higher intellect than average.
I think that intellect may sometimes be weakly and unreliably associated with some kinds of competence, but not with integrity, which is as important. I think power seekers are self-selecting to be more self-serving.
Issue with your original statement is that it implies negative correlation between intellect and being good politician. All the issues you describe (both being self serving and power seeking) apply to anyone regardless to their intellect (and I still think they apply less to people of high intellect just because they see bigger picture, but I might be wrong).
We need to optimize for less self serving and more integrity but we should strive for smarter people up there too.
Even considering obvious issue of wealth going down like crazy in such hypothetical scenario in its ends this would be enough. Because in the end it’s all part of same economy.
reply