TPUs are like the NPU of the training world. You take a bunch of extra time, money and dedicated silicon and end up with an ASIC that barely competes on equal terms with a similarly priced GPU. Unless you've got access to Nvidia's TSMC supply, you're probably not going to make a dent on their demand.
Additionally - TPUs are completely useless if AI goes out of style, unlike CUDA GPUs. The great thing about Nvidia's hardware right now is that you can truly use the GPU for whatever you want. Maybe AI falls through in 2026, and now those GPUs can be used for protein folding or crypto mining. Maybe crypto mining and protein folding falls through - you can still use most of those GPUs for raster renders and gaming too! TPUs are just TPUs - if AI demand goes away, your dedicated tensor hardware is dead weight.
Also TPU v1,v2 and v3 were ASICs, but since v4 they have added some new features so they have a lower performance/watt which is quite near Nvidia's power draw. I think Hopper is at 700W and TPU are around 600W.
Intellect is like a gas, it will expand to fill its container. The container, in humans, is epigenetic and social — genetics only determines how hot or cold your gas is, ie how fast and how fluidly it expands, but you’re taught your limits — it’s best to see stupid as not how limited you are relative to other but what limits you have now and may abandon in the future.
That said, some people received a smaller starting container, and might need some help cracking it. That’s the work of those who think they’ve found a bigger one.
The inborn part is how quickly you get results (good or bad). Stupidity is the results.
If we spent 50% of time thinking productively - inborn thinking speed would matter. But in my estimate even 5% is generous.
So it matters far more what kind of feedback you have to filter out the wrong results, and how much time you spend thinking - than how quickly you can do it.
It is bad because it suffers from misattribution error, ultimately not leading to any solution and often making the situation worse. A downward spiral of misinterpreted signal
So you're saying success at maths isn't an inbuilt ability. Instead, it depends on an (inbuilt) ability to hyper focus... Which you are just born with?
Not even that. It depends on the learned ability to stop pushing yourself when your focus is wavering. That's how you develop aversion towards the topic. Let your natural curiosity draw you to particular topics (that's why you might have a winding road through the subject).
parent comment was a bit tounge-in-cheek but I'll continue the sentiment: You're saying that the curiosity is "natural" hence one is either born with it or not. I think that there is no way around the fact that it will be hard and uncomfortable to mimic the progress of someone that has an innate inclination towards a subject (be it talent or focus or curiosity) artificially.
Hey, that doesn't have to be what "natural curiosity" means. Besides which it makes no sense to say people are born with complex interests. I mean, OK, your genes might incline you a certain way, but that's not the same thing.
Being interested in a subject is massively helpful to learning it. But interest arises circumstantially, it's an emotion. The grim reality that it would be really useful to you to learn a certain subject does not necessarily make you interested in the subject, unfortunately. (Perhaps "financially interested", but that's something else.)
I think there is some natural inclination towards abstract thinking versus more grounded in reality, just judging based on kids I know. Some of them really enjoy playing with ideas in their heads, some enjoy playing with things they can touch more. It seems likely that those different attractions would express themselves in how much they practice different things as time goes on.
I was talking about curiosity in general not curiosity about something in particular. We are naturally inquisitive to the point we have to be restrained by our parents. The problem is some of the restraints are based on the fears of our parents and not on actual dangers. Also, it's hard to develop an appreciation for something when it's forced fed to you.
> You're saying that the curiosity is "natural" hence one is either born with it or not.
Why does curiosity being natural necessarily mean some people are born without it? It could also mean everyone (or every average human) is born with it, and overtime it gets pushed out of people.
I think the case you mentioned is explained by an idea covered in attachment theory. Children explore when they feel safe and secure. Safety and security come from the caregivers, the parents. When that is absent, because the parents' emotional state makes the children feel insecure, then the children are restrained by their own emotions.
Same way we do now: based on who's parents can donate a new wing for the campus to build.
But sure, it's the same problem with any other prestigious venue. Demand far far far outstrips supply. So they don't really need to pick "the best" students. Merely students "over the bar of quality". There's no problem in the eyes of the venue, so there's nothing to change.
I think the implied assumption in this question is flawed to begin with in that not everyone needs to be at a famous institution to succeed. But if you want my likely bad take: sports coaches actually have a pretty decent method of scouting by... well, scouting. seek out local/state/national talent and nurture them years before an app goes in. If they can build a relationship, that's a personal referral that goes farther than any essay prompt.
It's the most flexible method because scouters can tailor from culture to culture, based on qualities that traditional education metrics wouldn't take into account.
It's a good idea! The Math Olympiad was a thing when I was in school. Just need to turn that into a more mainstream competition and build up a much larger culture and business around succeeding in it.
