To put a billionaire in perspective, it's more interesting to think about the income than the capital. You can get a 5% annual return from some fairly low-risk investments (and you can further reduce risk by spreading your money across a load of these). You can often get higher, but 5% is a fairly good baseline.

If you start with $1bn and do nothing clever, you can get an income of $50 M per year by doing nothing. Even with the kind of 95% tax rate that we had for the highest income levels when The Beatles sang about it, that leaves you with $2.5M/year in income.

That's enough to buy a nice house every year, with no mortgage. It's a disposable income of almost $7K. It's enough to take a first-class transatlantic flight every day.

And that's just one billion.

Even with a 95% tax rate on investment income and a conservative investment strategy, someone with a billion dollars would have a daily disposable income that's more than the monthly income of anyone in the bottom 99% of earners, without having to work.

Now try these calculations again with real tax rates and Musk or Bezos' wealth.

Someone recently suggested to me that AI systems bring the users' ability closer to the average. I was intrigued by this idea because it reflects my experience. I am, for example, terrible at any kind of visual art, but with something like Stable Diffusion I can produce things that are merely quite bad, whereas without it I can produce things that are absolutely terrible. Conversely, with GitHub Copilot I can write code with more bugs that's harder to read. Watching non-programmers use it and ChatGPT with Python, they can produce fairly mediocre code that mostly works.

I suppose it shouldn't surprise anyone that a machine that's trained to produce output from a statistical model built from a load of examples would tend towards the mean.

An unflattering interpretation of this would suggest that the people who are most excited by AI in any given field are the people with the least talent in that field.