| >Oh wait…every hedge fund bro is already doing this. And most of them aren’t billionaires. The contra to this is some of them are billionaires, and therefore this strategy is working, but for just a few of them. >why would any one system ever have a large majority of the compute? Compute will be distributed in a power law. A power law probability distribution means one system absolutely can have a large majority of the compute. Player 1 gets 80% of the compute, player 2 gets 16% (80% of 20%), and so on. The scaling constant would have to be very weak indeed in order to avoid this fate. In fact, the wealth of those hedge fund billionaires probably fit a power law themselves. But to be fair, that power law does indeed to be (for now) weak enough that we don't have to worry about e.g. Jim Simons being richer than every other hedge fund manager put together. So there's a buried assumption in here that the power law scaling is weak, and that is something purely empirical. >The smart regulation isn’t capping the FLOPS in training runs. That’s creating a powder keg. If the FLOPS are artificially restricted, and one person breaks the restriction, you could end up with a single dominant system. The smart regulation is to use something like fine insured bounties [1] to give people a very strong incentive not to break the FLOPS cap, and to heavily financially reward people who turn in other people who are doing so. If such a mechanism didn't exist, then I would agree, the free market would be our next best bet to deharsh the power law. [1]: [url-redacted] - I sketched out the mechanism a few years ago, but sadly it didn't generate much interest online. To be fair the atmosphere was a lot more anti-regulation back then. |
I have no clue how hedge fund managers make their money, but I was under the assumption that it involved charging their clients hefty fees for managing the funds.