If he provides a good service he probably deserves it. Your next question is probably either “if one person has all the money, who has money remaining to spend” or “inequality is bad” (if you have given it more thought).
To either question the answer is: current monetary system doesn’t allow this to happen and inequality is okay as long as the floor is increasing for everyone (to an extent).
Zucc giving 1B to a relatively unknown researcher is the redistribution that people a should be in favour of. Just that it’s not redistribution to them.
The bigger picture is that this investment is towards furthering good LLM research which will again benefit everyone. This transaction seems to be good in all angles.
It reinforces meritocracy. What’s the alternative?
Why not have the best person get all the money?
If he provides a good service he probably deserves it. Your next question is probably either “if one person has all the money, who has money remaining to spend” or “inequality is bad” (if you have given it more thought).
To either question the answer is: current monetary system doesn’t allow this to happen and inequality is okay as long as the floor is increasing for everyone (to an extent).
Zucc giving 1B to a relatively unknown researcher is the redistribution that people a should be in favour of. Just that it’s not redistribution to them.
The bigger picture is that this investment is towards furthering good LLM research which will again benefit everyone. This transaction seems to be good in all angles.
2 replies →