Agreed, and I think this is reasonable. There are a great many examples of people who amassed wealth in unsavory or illegal ways. And my sense is that almost nobody defends all forms of wealth acquisition as moral and good.
That said, I think there are a great many people who believe that all forms of wealth acquisition (above a certain scale) are fundamentally immoral. And that belief is held because they believe, "The only way you get a billion dollars is taking advantage of working people, not earning it."
So, my read is that PG's point is not to defend all billionaires. But instead, to debunk the incorrect folk-belief that all billionaires necessarily are exploitative.
> if the economy is growing at 2.5%, how do you sustain 15% over 5 years?
US GDP is $31.82 trillion dollars per year. Taking the 2.5% growth rate, that's nearly $800 billion dollars per year in new GDP.
The economy very obviously does not progress as a bunch of soldiers marching in a straight line. Some firms will shrink 100%, some will growth 10,000%. This much is obvious by just looking around. But even if no businesses shrank, no wages were docked, nothing bad happened... even still there would be $800B in more GDP.
So if the economy is growing at $800B per year, it's extremely obvious how a company could even grow from $1M to $1B in revenue per year without doing anything shady... Just capture some of the new economic activity that cropped up this year!
And it's even easier when we're talking about an entrepreneur's net worth. Their net worth is going to be mostly holdings in company stock. The value of company stock is some multiple of the company's theoretical future financial earnings.
So if a company is making $1M revenue today, and growths to $5M revenue by the end of the year (15% MoM growth), at let's say a 30% EBITDA margin, they have made $1.5M EBITDA. And let's say that fast growth is rewarded at an extremely rich 50x EBITDA multiple. That company is now worth $75M. If this founder is lucky and owns 50% of their business, they now are "worth" $37.5M.
If they were only at $1M * .30 * 50 * 0.50 = $7.5M net worth at the beginning of the year, and then were at $37.5M at the end, their net worth increased by 500% in one year! And all they had to do was capture $4M / $8000M = 0.05% of the increase in GDP.
Like, none of this is either shady or complicated.
I think that's fair for certain one-shot generations. For example, sending off a single prompt to an image or music generator and just accepting the output.
But I think most of this stuff is iterative, multi-turn. You type a thing in, see what comes back, and then repeat until you have something that satisfies your desire.
Taking the manager analogy. If you spent 30-minutes writing up a draft spec, waited for the outputs, had a review meeting where you provided good feedback, and then repeated that cycle until the product was done... Again, I think that manager (assuming, of course, that their feedback was useful) should feel some pride in shaping that output!
In a pre-LLM world, a classic software team would have PMs, designers, and engineers.
Of those three, the PM wouldn't have any real role in writing code. And they would rarely contribute a ton to the design. What they would be contributing is ideas, market insights, coordination, prioritization, etc.
When the product ships, one would expect the PM to feel a real sense of accomplishment. They helped this idea become a _real thing_! All of that pride, despite not writing a single line of code nor polishing any pixels themselves. And I don't think anybody would reasonably look down on them for that feeling.
Same thing with using LLMs. Sure, you didn't write the code. But you caused the thing to exist! That's exciting!
I would assume that at least one of two things are true:
1. They're costs are so so out of control that they need to impose a blanket cap immediately. Figuring out an allocation mechanism that can be deployed company wide is time consuming and they need to staunch the bleeding immediately, despite it being obviously suboptimal.
2. The few people who should have unlimited tokens were given exactly that. No reason to introduce such nuance to a public PR move. The hard-cap limit is a great negotiating posture with token providers.
The top 0.01% still pay enormous taxes. Elon one year personally paid $11B in taxes.
I get that a lot of people think people's unrealized capital gains should be taxed, so maybe the argument you're making is something like:
"People with very large paper-gains based on appreciation of the market-value of the assets they own pay 0% taxes on those unrealized gains"
In which case, yeah, that's definitely true. But if they sell those assets, they pay taxes. Some of the taxes from those sales can be offset by doing things like donating enormous sums of money to charity. And sometimes people take loans against their equity, which is not a taxable event. Though, in order to pay those loans back, they have to sell something (taxable) or earn money elsewhere (also taxable). So loans are tax deferral...
This perception that "lower ranks" are becoming poorer is just empirically not true.
On every metric, people in all income brackets are earning more on both a gross and COL-adjusted basis. It is the case that top quintile income has increased more than bottom quintile income, but a faster relative increase does not mean the other group is getting poorer.
The other very interesting thing is that there is statistically not really a "upper ranks" and "lower ranks". The majority of people in the 1% each year are there for the first (and often only) time. And a very, very small percentage of people in the bottom percentiles remain there for their whole life.
Some interesting research:
* 12% of the population will find themselves in the top 1% for at least one year
* Nearly 70% will spend at least one year in the top 20%
* More than half will have at least one year in the top 10%
* While 12% may reach the top 1% at some point, a mere 0.6% stay there for 10 consecutive years
All of that is to say, the idea that there are is some entrenched upper class waging war against some entrenched lower class is just empirically not true. If you dig through the data what you'll find is:
1. People who are just entering the workforce don't make a lot of money
2. As people spend time in the workforce, they make increasingly more money
3. When they retired, they start making less money but tend to have assets to live on
It's far more dynamic than most people's intuition leads them to believe.
The top 1% of income earners pay 40% of all the federal taxes collected. The top 25% pay 89% of taxes.
Net of transfers, 60% of households receive more from government transfers than they pay in taxes.
The idea that rich people don't pay taxes is just not correct. The entire system is basically rich people subsidizing everybody else through byzantine distributional systems.
This is definitely the way. There are good use cases for real sandboxes (if your agent is executing arbitrary code, you better it do so in an air-gapped environment).
But the idea of spinning up a whole VM to use unix IO primitives is way overkill. Makes way more sense to let the agent spit our unix-like tool calls and then use whatever your prod stack uses to do IO.
Reflexivity is nodded to in the definition of complex systems in the piece!
I think what you're saying is poverty is actually simple, and the solution is to stop the bad actors causing poverty? But at the same time, you are correctly recognizing that attempts to stop bad actors from causing poverty triggers reflexive responses and cascading repercussions. Which sounds mighty like a complex system?
Not the intention at all. The part about mechanistic interpretability was meant to gesture at how building such systems can provide new tool kit for building further intuition and understanding.
Perhaps a failure of communication -- I was indeed attempting to say that Chomsky was wrong and his ideas were interesting, but more or less a dead end.
That said, I think there are a great many people who believe that all forms of wealth acquisition (above a certain scale) are fundamentally immoral. And that belief is held because they believe, "The only way you get a billion dollars is taking advantage of working people, not earning it."
So, my read is that PG's point is not to defend all billionaires. But instead, to debunk the incorrect folk-belief that all billionaires necessarily are exploitative.