> There is obviously a difference between understanding what smarter people have already done, and actually innovating and building on what they have done. The

> There is obviously a difference between understanding what smarter people have already done, and actually innovating and building on what they have done. The latter requires a much deeper understanding. Does it really? When you build a DB do you really spend a lot of time thinking about set theory? How about 4th normal form? Or do you just do it? Right now the thing that keeps those with an engineering mindset out side of the playground is COST. Get a 96gb GPU below 1000 bucks and they become toys, below 500 and a kid can get into playing with one (if that seems insane, it's the cost of a PS5). You know what a 96gb GPU does... it opens up the idea of shoving small models into games. No more "I took an arrow to the knee" meme's because you could fill a world with characters in a story. It means running models at home makes sense. The people working at removing "training" as a distinct step and making that an "ongoing" process (without it being lossy) are going to have a massive impact on the industry (more so in smaller models, we might get REAL agents). I would be willing to bet that it's an engineer that solves the issue and not someone with a math or ML background. There are tons of ways the landscape will change and open up. In a few years that top 100 maybe one or two will be a a Dennis Ritchie or Michael Stonebraker.