On What Planet ... is imprecision better than precision?
If we don't get more precise in our thinking and hence writing, the AI revolution is going to populate the surface of Planet Earth (and eventually the moon too) with so much hardware supporting ...
If we don’t get more precise in our thinking and hence our writing the AI revolution is going to populate the surface of Planet Earth (and eventually the moon too) with so much hardware supporting the Cloud’s storage needs that there won’t be any space left for people.
Hyperbole? … maybe.
I read somewhere that 4 in 5 Americans think the notion ‘words can be violence’ is a true notion.
The article citing this along with the I don’t know how many others on the same topic add up to millions and millions if not billions and on all topics probably trillions of new bytes required to store them in the Data Storage Centers currently storing such things. I’m sure Human ingenuity (see recent studies on biological systems vs silicon) will help reduce the problems. (For example, I read somewhere a decade or so ago that all the information so far produced by human beings since the dawn of man and 1,000 years into the future could be stored in a quarter cup of DNA material—if of course there were such a thing as proper i/o devices to write it/read it out. There isn’t so we have a problem.)
But humans being what they are—see my recent mention of our top Ivy League Tower Universities being homes for Educated Drivel Masters (Chapter 8)—that my first statement might not be hyperbole after all—even granting human ingenuity.
In the search for more efficient storage let me contribute my two cents—2 ¢—worth by laying off the following precision of my lte on the topic versus just the one article referencing the 4 out of 5 article combined to see what precision can accomplish:
EDITOR
St. Paul Pioneer Press
Fax: 651-228-5564
May 1, 2002
Dear Editor:
“In answer to D.J. Tice’s question on Moral clarity”
In his May 1, 2002 opinion-editorial piece Mr. Tice asked: ...which part of the definition on terrorism that says “...terrorism is the deadly and deliberate targeting of civilians to achieve a political purpose” does not apply to the American and British bombing of German and Japanese cities during world War II?
The correct answer is: the last part about achieving a political purpose. The purpose of the American and British bombing was to stop the Germans and Japanese from killing Americans and Britons.
If one wants to call stopping killing a political purpose and starting killing a political purpose then I can see why one would be confused and unclear about their moral position on lots of things, not just terrorism.
It wouldn’t be that much different if one said, since both murder and self-defense involve violence and since violence is bad it is as bad to defend yourself against a murderer as it is to be a murderer. Since this position, if advocated, would make the world a safe-haven for murderers, rational people not only do not accept it but they go further as they should and reject it with a sense of moral outrage. And some even go so far as to reject it with a justified sense of moral certitude as the means to preventing those who would dare advocate such a thing from gaining a foothold in their culture.
Gary Deering, retired Engineeer
My address
My phone number, Myemail@myISP
Be sure to click your Browser’s BACK button to get back to the text from whence you cometh.
This one was actually published in full, hence the (full) green color for the Click-to-title (versus ones that only had parts of them published).
I did this and on a comparison from Document stats’ read time, my precision would save at a 7/1 ratio—that is require 7 times less storage.
Plus, it would be true.
So that is pretty good I’d say: looks like truth (in terms of zettabytes’ “time to read” proxy) is better than falsehoods.
© October 9th, 2025, Gary Dean Deering
Minnesota, USA