Incredibly sad and demoralizing to see the rationalizations and excuses people are making for this behavior in the comments here (or for the likely lack of professional consequences). But I guess these are the times in which we live.
No excuses or rationalizations here, but: Do we fire people for cheating on their spouse? Seems like a private, family matter.
Of course, the spy aspect could be relevant from a professional perspective (depending on what actions he took or what he knew), but I'm guessing you're talking about him having an affair.
I think every corporate training I've ever taken has made it pretty clear if you had an affair with a vendor and gave them something in exchange you'd be fired as soon as it came to light. I've seen people, even CEOs, fired for affairs at work because of the power dynamics. So the answer is maybe, it depends.
I can't even remember how many times I read a permutation of the following in company trainings:
"Failure to adhere to this policy will result in disciplinary action, up to and including termination of employment, and may also subject the individual to civil or criminal legal proceedings."
When they are the CEO of multi-trillion dollar, geopolitically important companies, and when we are talking about spies of geopolitical adversaries? Yes, absolutely.
In fact, the affair was less important. Even if they were just a very close but unromantic professional relationship it would be a serious scandal.
Most posters in HN don't think "poor corporations are the victims when they are hacked". They think "the corporations should be liable because they did not invest enough in security". This is morally the same.
Hm sure but politicians and world leaders cheat serially on their spouses and we don’t seem to think that’s something they should be held accountable for.
Only juvenile and unserious people are focused on sex and cheating here. The problem is who he was influenced by and who he went on to influence, whether this relationship was romantic or not. This is a problem of judgement and damage control now.
It's not personal when you're in a certain role. You are not just representing your company, as a CEO you are practically embodying the company. It is the ultimate position, and it's compensated accordingly. If you want a personal life, resign from the job of CEO of the world's biggest and most strategically important company.
That is a very American take. I think there are other countries (e.g. Germany, the Netherlands) where there is a much stricter separation between the professional and private persona. Nvidia is american, and so is Jensen, so i guess it is OK to judge him by this standard. Just saying that different cultures judge this behavior differently.
Yeah you say that then your country elects a serial-cheater pedophile as president; I'm not sure you are so representative of your country customs as you think.
Espionage aside, let's not forget that he was having an affair with a customer company's executive. If that's not a massive professional fuckup I don't know what is.
To be fair he probably spends all of his "free" time working. As the founder and CEO of it there is no personal or professional life. It's all one life.
People who speed take reckless actions endangering others, therefore we should fire anybody who gets a speeding ticket. Thoughts?
Now take the same point and apply it to every other crime, misdemeanor, and breaking of rules. Should companies really operate based on that? Or should we maybe draw a boundary around professional life and only consider the professional life?
I'm not saying what I would do, just what many places think: the CEO was picked up for drink driving last night, maybe we should try hiring someone else instead.
I think the issue is normally more that these might expose you to blackmail or extortion.
But that's ironically a non issue now that's it's front page press...lol.
It's a bit like celebrities who release embarassing photos themselves, to bypass hackers leaking them. (To be clear, I don't think the photos should be out either way, your private matters should stay private, celebrity or not, and it's horrid to have it dragged out in public. But I do admire the ballsiness in just releasing it themselves. And in this post-modern era, perversely some people seem to benefit from the exposure)
> No excuses or rationalizations here, but: Do we fire people for cheating on their spouse? Seems like a private, family matter.
It is not so clear, if this is about his character and can he be trusted. This is evidence that someone is capable for lying and doing something that might not be in line with company ethics either. I don't think we can assume from humans that "he lies only in his private life, but can be totally trusted on business side".
The "big deal" here isn't the affair - that happens all the time and if he were dating an employ or something boring like that we'd probably never even hear about it.
The problem is the spying and Chinese influence - which doesn't happen all the time and is a big deal because he runs the biggest chip company in the world at a time we're trying to keep that tech away from China.
Security clearance applications have a whole section asking about extra-marital affairs, money problems, and whatnot precisely because spys use those types of things to bribe, blackmail, and pressure people. It sounds like a cheesy Cold War spy movie - but it happens in real life, as we're seeing.
I’ve seen some wild opinions on HN. One that particularly lingers in my mind was a suggestion that we use immigrant women as incubators to solve the population crisis. Shockingly not downvoted into oblivion.
HN cares about money and tech. Don’t take morality or life advice from here.
It's always an interesting conversation because like socialism, eugenics covers a lot that normal people consider obviously fine and obviously good but don't believe the word covers that use because all eugenics and all socialism must be evil.
i.e. most people are happy for taxes to go to roads/water/power infrastructure while being dead set against 'socialism'.
The classic eugenics gotcha is filtering for genetic disease. Most people are happy with that, but then to make the question harder what if you filter out embryos with sickle cell and then are also disproportionately filtering out multiple ethnic heritages as well.
I don't really blame people if they are exposed to these technologies and see the stats that say 'yes taller people are statistically more successful', or most people consider x or y more advantageous, then say I want my kid to have as many of those advantages as possible. The same will apply with the even more extreme case of genetic engineering where you aren't just selecting for possible traits but inserting ones that wouldn't occur naturally for a couple, though it crosses a convenient place to draw a line and would likely homogenize people more.
That doesn't necessarily mean it should be allowed, there's plenty of behaviors that are advantageous and not even problematic for individuals to do that are illegal because if too many people do it there's a problem and so the easiest or possibly even most elegant solution is to ban it or sub types of a behavior. Especially if a sub group of people are known to abuse it, there's a difference between picking green eyes and strawberry blonde hair because you believe it'll cause shallow people to be nicer to your kid, vs choosing blue eyes and blonde hair because you believe that is the ultimate pinnacle of man.
Agreed, and I'm not even that moralistic about the affair. It happens. This guy is in charge one of the most influential and important companies in the world. He owes the entire world a higher standard of conduct. Not for moral reasons, but for security, integrity, and consistency. If he's allowing himself to be influenced by China, the ramifications for Nvidia are staggering. If he wants some sex, use a hooker, or at least have an affair with NOT A SPY. Having an affair with a spy is unbelievable levels of incompetence, and calls into question his competence as a leader.
We're not going to do the complexity justice with our 2 comments, but..
My opinion is that - particularly with the wisdom of hindsight - it is right to say this is a serious lapse in judgement of Jensen. Especially given the potential security/strategic implications.
However to then make the jump to this saying something about his qualities of leadership is a big leap. His leadership record is exceptional: decades of foresight, strategic risk-taking, and execution. It seems wrong to allow one episode to outweigh three decades of evidence.
That's fair too. Perhaps on balance a little Chinese influence isn't worse than what he has accomplished. It just feels like one of those red lines for me. If he's willing to canoodle with spies from adversarial nations, what else is he doing exactly? And is he doing it on purpose or by accident?
I don't think that framing helps him. He's one of the most targeted people in the world for espionage. If the claim is he didn't know, to not check the background of a prominent Chinese national with which he was having an affair is gross incompetence.
Not sure these times are at all unique. If anything I imagine equivalent billionaires from the past were even greater philanderers. Hell, I was recently reading about Benjamin Guggenheim, who died on the Titanic and is known for "I played the game straight to the end and that no woman was left on board this ship because Ben Guggenheim was a coward. Tell her that my last thoughts will be of her and our girls" - and he was travelling with his mistress while those final words were recorded.
Well, I'm also disappointed to see the holier-than-thou bias in such full display here too. If you're unfamiliar:
> It’s the well-documented bias in which people systematically overestimate how morally they would behave compared with others—especially in high-pressure or ambiguous situations—while underestimating the situational forces that actually shape behavior.
I'm sure we're all paragons of moral virtue here but the reality is that unless you've been personally targeted by a nation state and successfully resisted, then you're really just fantasizing. Yeah bro, I'm sure you would have effortlessly resisted the Chinese sex trap, right after you benched 1000, got that hole in one and beat Hamilton at qualifying. You're just that good.
For reference, one of the first things I was taught as a software engineer working in a highly secure industry long ago was that we should take psychological manipulation/seduction very seriously to avoid damaging the company and leaking national secrets. If I did something like this I would've lost my job at minimum and likely faced severe legal action.
Regardless of how much you think we can or cannot resist actions from a foreign nation state, the ultimate fact of the matter is that he failed and thus is no longer suited for his position. If I would face worse consequences for such an action, then I damn well expect someone who's paid far above my pay grade to represent a company to face some consequences as well.
Why do people virtuously out their own personal weaknesses on here with such glee? Then again, this is Hacker News, wouldn't expect many men on here to get much attention from the opposite sex. You're probably right.
Nor did I imply there was. I was talking of consequences when they came to light (doubly so when they materially impact one’s company and national security).
Read Anna Karenina sometime. Tolstoy shows both the aspect of a society in which rich men having affairs was considered the norm, and the destructive effect it has on people. (And also the double standard by which women were judged much more harshly than men for having affairs). And he also, by comparing the two main relationships in the book (Vronsky's affair with Anna, and Levin's marriage to Kitty), said "It doesn't have to be this way, you can have healthy relationships if you just reject society's advice to have affairs and instead stay faithful to your wife".
I didn't like the book when I first read it (mostly because I seriously dislike Anna, and the book naturally spends a lot of time being told from her POV), but in retrospect, it's brilliant. Tolstoy has, without a single bit of moralizing, presented one of the best arguments I've seen in literature for being faithful to one's spouse and not engaging in affairs.
P.S. I should add that I don't think Tolstoy was inventing the "rich men having affairs was considered normal" aspect for the purpose of the book. I think that was what Russian society was really like at the time, and he took that aspect of society and wrote a book criticizing it, highlighting the negative effects that that attitude would have on people.
I think that "rich men having affairs" has been considered normal for most of human history. Of course, in China there were official (and unofficial) concubines, and many cultures have accepted and endorsed polygamy.
I think most of human history would want to have a word with you...
Now whether it was directly admitted to is a different thing, versus a nudge nudge wink wink thing....cue British aristocracy.
We might all have our personal views on whether it's right or wrong. Or whether it's sinful, etc. But that's orthogonal to reality.
I mean... seriously, look at literature, look at music... Heck, read the Bible? It's been a feature of all of recorded human history, that people will stray. We are human as they say...
> We might all have our personal views on whether it's right or wrong. Or whether it's sinful, etc.
> I mean... seriously, look at literature, look at music... Heck, read the Bible?
You already know what we all think about whether it's right or wrong, you've answered it yourself. I hold that, for most of human history and indeed all of modern history, it is deeply frowned upon.
> There was never a time when it wasn't deeply frowned upon either, because having an affair is not the norm.
I'm pointing out that your clutching pearls here is a bit much.
It's a bit like grandpa shaking his fist at the sky "Back in my day....we didn't lie or steal....people never cheated on their spouses...people never cheated on their taxes...people never got divorced"
Extending your logic, you could argue that for most of human history, killing other people was frowned upon. But history would like to have a word with you.
Humans have a remarkable cognitive dissonance when it comes to their own failings (I'm speaking collectively here).
Let me ask you this - have you ever downloaded an "illegal" movie or TV show? Or "pirated" a book? Or "defrauded" the government, or not declared your full income?
Or looked at somebody's item, and thought "gee, I wish I had that gadget/book/car/house/holiday as well" (i.e. coveted)?
Arguably 75% of YouTube is people coveting other people's things - but you don't see the moral police clutching pearls and going - "How could they!!!! It's deeply frowned upon!!!! We must shut down this sin!!!!"
By your yardstick - looking at a woman (or man - we are in modern times, after all) with lustful thoughts, is already adultery in His eyes. And committing divorce also makes you guilty of adultery as well. Or marrying a divorced person. And also, doing anything icky before marriage. Yet are people going around saying "We must shut down this divorce nonsense! Divorce is not the norm! It is deeply frowned upon."
I think it's more accurate to raise an eyebrow at the idea of powerful people not habitually having affairs (historically, most of which have been men in modern times).
Because power is an ability to do what one wants, and a lot of people want sex.
The person I responded to said "men," not "rich men." You're arguing a point that neither of us is arguing. It is perhaps historically interesting that rich people have been boning down since time immemorial, but I'd counter with the fact that rich people have also faced consequences – sometimes even lethal ones – for their affairs since time immemorial too. Having an affair is and has always been deeply frowned upon by human society as a whole, and society has always reacted by shaming the people who've been caught doing it.
Yes, for most of human history - homosexuality was also deeply frowned upon, and stoned people for it.
Look at say, Oscar Wilde or Alan Turing?
Are you saying we should go back to those times?
I think we need to differentiate between our own personal choices - vs trying to imprint them onto society as a whole, or bringing back public shaming for whatever moral panic we think there is. And quite frankly, NVDA share price aside - a lot of this is about deeply personal or private matters - and we don't know what's going on behind the scenes.
It's like people obsessed about which celebrity is cheating on which celebrity...it's their business shrugs. I care if they make good art.
Rednote has been shown as the top free app (per Apple’s own App Store in my device at least) for going on a week, so the magnitude may be larger than you imply.
Also, having tried it myself, the algorithm works much like TikTok whereby it learns to show English speakers English content pretty quickly.
Also the general consensus among people who have used IG and TikTok (I personally don’t use IG) seems to be that the former does not at all substitute for the latter, particularly in terms of the subjective “authentic” feel of the content (IG often said to be lacking the community feel of TikTok).
I explicitly stated in a different comment that Rednote will not replace TikTok. I don’t think anyone seriously believes that. It’s subject to the same ban after all.
The interesting aspect here is rather the magnitude of dissatisfaction that a large percentage of users feel towards the other mainstream US social content platforms.
I don't think that's going to happen. The party official seems to be positive about the event overall based on their press release recently. IMO it's going to the opposite direction, where they try to get more foreign users on the platform and have them stay there. If I were a CCP official, I would love to have more soft power by having everyone on a Chinese platform.
P and B frames are compressed versions of a reference image. Frames resulting from DLSS frame generation are predictions of what a reference image might look like even though one does not actually exist.
But MPEG is lossy compression which means they are kind of a just a guess. That is why MPEG uses motion vectors.
"MPEG uses motion vectors to efficiently compress video data by identifying and describing the movement of objects between frames, allowing the encoder to predict pixel values in the current frame based on information from previous frames, significantly reducing the amount of data needed to represent the video sequence"
There's a real difference between a lossy approximation as done by video compression, and the "just a guess" done by DLSS frame generation. Video encoders have the real frame to use as a target; when trying to minimize the artifacts introduced by compressing with reference to other frames and using motion vectors, the encoder is capable of assessing its own accuracy. DLSS fundamentally has less information when generating new frames, and that's why it introduces much worse motion artifacts.
it would be VERY interesting to have actual quantitative data on how many possible I video frames map to a specific P or B frame vs how many possible raster frames map to a given predicted DLSS frame. The lower this ration the more "accurate" the prediction is.
Compression and prediction are the same. Decompressing a lossy format is guessing how the original image might have looked like. The difference between fake frames and P and B frames is that the difference between prediction of fake frame and real frame is dependant on the user input.
... now I wonder ... Do DLSS models take mouse movements and keypresses into account?
Speaking of Bitcoin specifically, if this is your view then you should take some time to understand the severe societal and economic problems that come with persistent deflation. And more generally, determining the optimal level of the money supply to match the needs of a dynamic economy is not trivial — there is no simple formula involving straightforwardly measurable variables that I am aware of.
Bitcoin is not a deflationary asset yet. It is a disinflationary asset until around year 2140 (with the rate decreasing every ~4 years and trending towards 0, at which point it will be deflationary).
For now its supply still inflates by ~1.7% a year.
Neither you, nor I will live to see that moment when the last bitcoin will be mined (as long as miners keep mining in our lifetime).
Bitcoin exists as an option to a lot of very inflationary assets (currencies which not that long ago almost reached 2 digit inflation rates) and having different kind of assets should be welcomed in my opinion, as it seems like a good way to diversify the risk you can't "straightforwardly measure".
I like to hold at least one asset for which I can almost guarantee a supply/emission won't change... better yet I can trustlessly verify it. If these propositions are not attractive to you or others, they don't have to acquire this asset either, it is completely opt-in, unlike the fiat money which your government forces you to acquire to pay their taxes.
> And more generally, determining the optimal level of the money supply to match the needs of a dynamic economy is not trivial
No, we don't need some grand wizards in an ivory tower to finely tune the amount of money in the economy, that idea is absurd. The economy has worked fine for thousands of years before they started doing that. In fact, since they started doing it we've seen ever growing boom and bust cycles.
Bitcoin and BFT consensus primarily solve the principal-agent problem, and give us a better means to experiment.
Personally, I don't think a deflationary global reserve currency is the precise answer, but I do believe that these experiments in monetary governance (like Ethereum's burn and mint model) will allow us to move closer to it.
Bitcoin has no governance mechanism for managing the money supply. If it was adopted as money, governments would have to implement some mechanism to manage the bitcoin supply, just like they did under the gold standard. Therefore it doesn't solve any principal-agent problem.
LLMs/transformers are a breakthrough on the level of convolutional neural networks — significant, and one that opens up lots of new interesting applications as well as invites lots more R&D — but like the neural net it’s not gonna fundamentally transform society or industry.
(And as far as I can tell this current craze is entirely predicated on LLMs/transformers.)
Autonomous cars alone will be transformative. And LLMs are not in their end-state, we went from GPT-1 to 4 in 5 years over that timespan it gained lots of new capabilities. Extrapolate, don't just look at what they can do today.
Atoms are more difficult than bits, so physical applications (e.g. in factories, robotics) will lag. I also expect specialist models like AlphaFold slowly finding their niches over time.
> significant, and one that opens up lots of new interesting applications as well as invites lots more R&D — but like the neural net it’s not gonna fundamentally transform society or industry.
Yeah, and semiconductor electronics that grad-students built from of germanium by painstakingly pressing them together are very interesting and worth additional R&D but won't transform society either.
I guess where both you and the GP are correct is that you can't make an autonomous car by applying transformers exclusively.
LLMs are "language I/O interfaces", and as such there isn't a lot of value they can create alone (even most of the currently proposed uses are bullshit). But it's quite likely that they'll be there on a lot of advanced technology helping it do what you meant.
Still even though both will be there in the transformative technology, and even though the technology may not even be useful without them, they are not central pieces on most of it.
llm companies raise lots of money on crazy evaluation, the question is if they will be able to build enough revenue stream to justify further money injections.
No you just decide what movie you want to watch and pay $4 to rent it on demand. Very common experience available to anyone with a smart TV or connected streaming device.
VR covers your entire field of view, so not sure why you’d claim that it precludes multitasking, even if the current iterations aren’t yet geared toward that.
I think the companies pursuing VR see that as a momentary technical deficiency, not an inherent limitation of VR generally. So to characterize their efforts as a long-term “bet” against multitasking seems silly to me.
It appears that this was just a misreading of how memory usage was being reported and there was actually no improvement here. At least nothing so sensational as being able to run a larger-than-RAM model without swapping from disk on every iteration.
Please read the original link to the pull request, where I stated my change offered a 2x improvement in memory usage. You actually are able to load models 2x larger without compromising system stability, because pages are no longer being copied. That's because you previously needed 40gb of RAM to load a 20GB model, in order to ensure your file cache wasn't destroyed and need to reread from disk the next time. Now you only need 20GB to load a 20GB model.
The peculiarity here is that tools like htop were reporting the improvement as being an 8x improvement, which is interesting, because RAM use is only 2x better due to my change. The rusage.com page fault reporting was also interesting too. This is not due to sparseness. It's because htop was subtracting MAP_SHARED memory. The htop docs say on my computer that the color purple is used to display shared memory, and yellow is used to display kernel file caches. But it turned out it just uses yellow for both, even though it shouldn't, because mincore() reported that the shared memory had been loaded into the resident set size.
It's obviously a productive change and kudos for taking it on, but much of the enthusiasm being generated here was driven by the entirely unanticipated prospect of running a model at full speed using less memory than the model's own footprint, and by the notion that inference with a dense model somehow behaved in a sparse manner at runtime. Best to be a bit more grounded here, particularly with regard to claims that defy common understanding.
I wanted it to be sparse. Doesn't matter if it wasn't. We're already talking about how to modify the training and evaluation to make it sparser. That's the next logical breakthrough in getting inference for larger models running on tinier machines. If you think I haven't done enough to encourage skepticism, then I'd remind you that we all share the same dream of being able to run these large language models on our own. I can't control how people feel. Especially not when the numbers reported by our tools are telling us what we want to be true.
The debate over what kind of intelligence these models possess is rightly lively and ongoing.
It’s clear that at the least, they can decipher very numerous patterns across a wide range of conceptual depths — it’s an architectural advance easily on the the level of the convolutional neural network, if not even more profound. The idea that NLP is “solved” isn’t a crazy notion, though I won’t take a side on that.
That said, it’s equally obvious that they are not AGI unless you have a really uninspired and self-limiting definition of AGI. They are purely feedforward aside from the single generated token that becomes part of the input to the next iteration. Multimodality has not been incorporated (aside from possibly a limited form in GPT-4). Real-world decision-making and agency is entirely outside the bounds of what these models can conceive or act towards.
Effectively and by design these models are computational behemoths trained to do one singular task only — wring a large textual input though an enormous interconnected web of calculations purely in service of distilling everything down to a single word as output, a hopefully plausible guess at what’s next given what’s been seen.
AGI is Artificial General Intelligence. We have absolutely passed the bar of artificial and generally intelligent. It's not my fault goal post shifting is rampant in this field.
And you want to know the crazier thing? Evidently a lot of researchers feel similarly too.
General Purpose Technologies ( from the Jobs Paper), General Artificial Intelligence (from the creativity paper). Want to know the original title of the recent Microsoft paper ? "First contact with an AGI system".
The skirting around the word that is now happening is insanely funny. Look at the last one. Fuck, they just switched the word order. Nobody wants to call a spade a spade yet but it's obvious people are figuring it out.
I can you show you output that clearly demonstrates understanding and reasoning. That's not the problem. The problem is that when I do, the argument Quickly shifts to "it's not true understanding!"
What a bizzare argument.
This is the fallacy of the philosophical zombie. Somehow there is this extra special distinction between two things and yet you can't actually show it. You can't test for so called huge distinction. A distinction that can't be tested for is not a distinction.
The intelligence arguments are also stupid because they miss the point entirely.
What matters is that the plane still flies, the car still drives and the boat still sails.
For the people who are now salivating at their potential, or dreading the possibility of being made redundant by them, these large language models are already intelligent enough to matter.
> ... these large language models are already intelligent enough to matter.
I'm definitely not contesting that.
I've always considered the idea of "AGI" to mean something of the holy grail of machine learning -- the point at which there is no real point in pursuing further advances in artificial intelligence because the AI itself will discover and apply such augmentations using its own capabilities.
I have seen no evidence that these transformer models would be able to do this, but if the current models can do so do then perhaps I will eat my words. (Doing this would likely mean that GPT-4 would need to propose, implement, and empirically test some fundamental architectural advancements in both multimodal and reinforcement learning.)
By the way, many researchers are equally convinced that these models are in fact not AGI -- that includes the head of OpenAI.
See what you're describing is much closer to ASI. At least, it used to be. This is the big problem I have. The constant post shifting is maddening.
AGI went from meaning Generally Intelligent to as smart as Human experts and then now smarter than all experts combined. You'll forgive me if I no longer want to play this game.
I know some researchers disagree. That's fine. The point I was really getting at is that no researcher worth his salt can call these models narrow anymore. There's absolutely nothing narrow about GPT and the like. So if you think it's not AGI, you've come to accept it no longer means general intelligence.
>> The point I was really getting at is that no researcher worth his salt can call these models narrow anymore.
Are you talking about large language models (LLMs)? Because those are narrow, and brittle, and dumb as bricks, and I don't care a jot about your "No True Scotsman". LLMs can only operate on text, they can only output text that demonstrates "reasoning" when their training text has instances of text detailing the solutions of reasoning problems similar to the ones they're asked to solve, and their output depends entirely on their input: you change the prompt and the "AGI" becomes a drooling idiot, and v.v.
That's no sign of intelligence and you should re-evaluate your unbridled enthusiasm. You believe in magick, and you are loudly proclaiming your belief in magick. Examples abound in history that magick doesn't work, and only science does.
I've been using chatgpt for a day and determined it absolutely can reason.
I'm an old hat hobby programmer that played around with ai demos back in the mid to late 90s and 2000s and chatgpt is nothing like any ai I've ever seen before.
It absolutely can appear to reason especially if you manipulate it out of its safety controls.
I don't know what it's doing to cause such compelling output, but it's certainly not just recursively spitting out good words to use next.
That said, there are fundamental problems with chatgpt's understanding of reality, which is to say it's about as knowledgeable as a box of rocks. Or perhaps a better analogy is about as smart as a room sized pile of loose papers.
But knowing about reality and reasoning are two very different things.
Have you tried out gpt4? If not and you can get access I'd really recommend it. It's drastically better than what you get on the free version - probably only a little on the absolute scale of intelligence but then so is the difference between an average person and a smart person is small on the scale from "worm" to "supergenius".
reply