What I meant is that it is possible the things that Von Neumann discovered were easier to discover than anything that is still undiscovered, so new Von Neumann’s won’t be as impressive.
Sure the median ‘impressiveness’ of various discoveries might change over time but whether someone’s discoveries was 5 standard deviations above average in 1953 or 5 standard deviations above average in 2023 doesn’t seem to matter?
oops, that was supposed to be something like ‘low hanging fruit’, I’m pretty sure it was a typo.
I still don’t understand how it’s possible for Von Neumann et al to ‘steal’ knowledge or insights. Steal from what?
Plus most of their discoveries appear to be non-rivalrous, unlike low hanging fruit.
What I meant is that it is possible the things that Von Neumann discovered were easier to discover than anything that is still undiscovered, so new Von Neumann’s won’t be as impressive.
Why wouldn’t they be?
Sure the median ‘impressiveness’ of various discoveries might change over time but whether someone’s discoveries was 5 standard deviations above average in 1953 or 5 standard deviations above average in 2023 doesn’t seem to matter?
So we can’t have less geniuses. More people means more people above 5 standard deviations (by definition?).