> Are there examples of where we have collective decided not to pursue knowledge? Successfully?
Intrinsically, the knowledge humans choose not to pursue will not be much publicized. There's limited value in calling attention to it and it doesn't make for good entertainment. Plenty of examples provided by other comments nonetheless.
> Perhaps I'm horribly naive, perhaps I just see the SciFi future I've spent my life reading and dreaming about on the horizon and I'm blinded by the reality, perhaps my ideals around "knowledge deserves to be free/accessible" are misguided. I don't know.
I don't personally think there's intrinsic benefit in disseminating arbitrary knowledge. There's quite some difference between the printing press and nukes.
Applying the term NIMBYism to anti-AI and anti-DC sentiment is a gross abuse of terminology. Datacenters don't need to be in anybody's residential neighborhood.
> Naively, this probably takes a lot more RAM (not to mention all the other computing resources) than to just have another HTTP handler sitting idle on some computer somewhere.
CF Workers uses V8 isolates rather than (OS/HW-level) VMs.
Also, the RAM usage isn't really a differentiator between FaaS and any other cloud instance. If a VM is used for FaaS, it's almost certainly also used across the platform for multi-tenancy, invisible live migration, etc.
Inserters have a max throughput of 120/s each chest-to-chest, 12 inserters can (un)load a single cargo wagon so 1440/s per-wagon. So 6:1 belts:wagons, a massive speed advantage over long distances, and much more flexible M:N distribution.
I feel your comment is deeply ironic... Just shy of self-awareness. Have you considered that the conceit of the fictional character is representing that reality?
> It applies its knowledge to create bespoke solutions to the problem you pose to it, and is able to self evaluate its progress towards the completion criteria.
It imitates applying knowledge. The imitation may be uncanny, but assigning LLMs intentionality and ToM is a category error.
Presumably they meant that they'd sacrifice some material value for some animals, not that every animal on Earth has infinitely more value than inanimate goods.
> infinities cannot be compared
That's either a mathematically illiterate assumption or a very strange philosophical hill to die on.
> some tragedies cannot be averted
Sure. The question is what to do about the ones that can be averted.
> some decisions are impossible to make
> and "prioritization" is a distraction that forces choices when choices are not strictly necessary.
Again, the question is what choices to make when you can (arguably must) make them. Saying they're impossible is just refusing to take responsibility. You either do something, or you don't.
Except LLMs are simulacra of actual intelligence. Frequently in a single conversation working on a single narrowly scoped task, I am both surprised by a few insights and cursing at how it can miss obvious issues. The "raw intelligence" of LLMs leaves much to be desired.
> We fit continuous theories to discrete measurements--and the good ones fit really well!--but until we can measure it how can we actually know?
Well, physicists came up with quantum mechanics because they found a way to distinguish a genuinely discrete phenomenon.
Understanding the physical universe overlaps with a subset of math. It shouldn't constrain the abstract tools which may or may not one day be useful for that understanding.
> An instance of a number that has a special meaning.
Not really. There are infinitely many infinities. Infinite numbers are not particularly more special than real numbers, complex numbers, matrices, functions/operators, etc.
> It's deeply distressing to watch people fall into AI psychosis.
It's unclear what you're saying here... Yes, AI-induced psychosis is a real problem and the frontier labs' mitigations are ineffective, to put it mildly. But using AI as a coding tool doesn't have anything to do with psychosis.
A strange view. The trade-off has nothing to do with a specific ideology or notable selfishness. It is an intrinsic limitation of the algorithms, which anybody could reasonably learn about.
Sure, the exact choice on the trade-off, changing that choice, and having a pretty product-breaking bug as a result, are much more opaque. But I was responding to somebody who was surprised there's any trade-off at all. Computers don't give you infinite resources, whether or not they're "servers," "in the cloud," or "AI."
Intrinsically, the knowledge humans choose not to pursue will not be much publicized. There's limited value in calling attention to it and it doesn't make for good entertainment. Plenty of examples provided by other comments nonetheless.
> Perhaps I'm horribly naive, perhaps I just see the SciFi future I've spent my life reading and dreaming about on the horizon and I'm blinded by the reality, perhaps my ideals around "knowledge deserves to be free/accessible" are misguided. I don't know.
I don't personally think there's intrinsic benefit in disseminating arbitrary knowledge. There's quite some difference between the printing press and nukes.