Having the whole world connected to top sports players also costs a lot of money, it doesn’t happen naturally
To become a good scientist you don’t need much classic capital, you need a good environment. And for ML you only need one computer for yourself or you can rent online
There are still big inefficiencies for those who have capital to discover good scientists / engineers. Lots of them are unknown.
But if there are top ones famous it will bring more people to study those fields
> There are still big inefficiencies for those who have capital to discover good scientists / engineers. Lots of them are unknown.
The way it works in academia is that scientists compete with each other for the limited capital ( grant funding and jobs ). Not the other way around.
> But if there are top ones famous it will bring more people to study those fields
Is the problem lack of talent in these fields or the narrow allocation of capital?
Is it really true that Noam is the only person in the world that could have done what he did or where their in fact lots of people who would have succeed given the same opportunities?
That's not to devalue what they did or the impact - and I'm all for recognising the contributions of scientists to society - but the reality is, for the most part, talent competes for capital rather than the other way around.
I'd also point out that I suspect the high profile appointments of people like Noam and John to OpenAI and Anthropic is as much to do with adding star quality to the IPO as much bringing in talent ( and that's not to diminish their talent ).
You are working around the reality : Noam’s name is good on paper, just like a pro footballer player. His name re assures investors, reduces risks.
This is good.
I don’t care that some are jealous of him because they think they are as good as him in linear algebra.
> Having the whole world connected to top sports players also costs a lot of money, it doesn’t happen naturally
The existence of pay-per-view sports TV wasn't a pre-requisite for professional football - that existed way before - clubs self funded from gate receipts, local business sponsorship - they grew out of the local communities.
Sure, global TV has brought in the big money, but it wasn't required for the game to exist - but the opposite is true - pay-per-view sports TV is very dependent on sports like football.
> To become a good scientist you don’t need much classic capital, you need a good environment.
Pretty much all scientists learn their craft doing a government funded PhD in government funded labs using government funded equipment. ie governments provide the capital. People simply aren't self taught.
> And for ML you only need one computer for yourself or you can rent online
In theory - but modern AI is so resource intensive, good luck competing with the likes of Google/OpenAI, even Deepseek like that.
No, the way it worked in the past for pro sports wasn’t enough to have those players worldwide famous and gossiped all the time
We need to make science more popular
We disagree on learning science and engineers, this doesn’t require physical capital, it only requires human capital
> No, the way it worked in the past for pro sports wasn’t enough to have those players worldwide famous and gossiped all the time
So? The point is football doesn't require this. It's not necessary for football to happen. The first Fifa world cup was in 1930.
> We disagree on learning science and engineers, this doesn’t require physical capital, it only requires human capital
Try building a bridge without any money. Try detecting the Higgs Boson without CERN. Sure Peter Higgs can come up with the idea of the Higgs Boson with little capital ( though somebody still paid for his living expenses - he wasn't a self funded gentlemen scientist ) - but that's the exception - most of the work is like CERN - and requires significant equipment and capital.