Though no one cares, I feel compelled to put down my 2 cents.
Such a "speed limit" is an unfathomably bad idea, in every way, and moreover is a violation of fundamental human rights. I deeply oppose it. That is all.
> Though no one cares, I feel compelled to put down my 2 cents.
I am not sure if you are insulting everyone who reads your point, or your own ability to communicate.
But maybe interpret the ideas less as a dichotomy you can't untangle and so must reject, which is a fragile place to reason from, and instead identify what are good points, what are not, and improve upon either.
Because there is certainly a great deal of truth to the problems being addressed.
What truth? The whole article is absurd. Speed limits exist to reduce fatalities, not reduce inequality. Road speed limits in my area have been increasing, not decreasing, as road designs have improved. Distance didn't scale with speed either - the West was settled well before the automobile.
Well, to start with, If you drive your car too fast, you might kill people. If you drive your computer too fast, it might get data corruption and/or reboot unexpectedly.
Or you might build a data center that poisons a community's water and drives up the cost of energy for your neighbors. We can't pretend there are zero negative externalities that accompany unconstrained compute.
To be clear I'm not necessarily agreeing with the idea, but to be fair, there's more to it than you're suggesting.
There's a great deal of demand for compute. Data centers are a very efficient way of providing that compute in a single place with limited resources. If computers were restricted to being slower and less efficient than they are now, people would build even more, and larger, data centers.
How does a person running a computer too fast cause them to build a building? Maybe make that part illegal, not the indirect cause. Otherwise we may wanna outlaw breathing, it may cause people to murder.
Like I said, I don't necessarily agree with the idea and I don't feel strongly enough about it to really argue in its favor, but to answer the question: the same reason why OpenAI doesn't operate out of Sam Altman's garage.
At a certain level of compute you need specialized infrastructure -- such as a purpose-built datacenter -- for the energy needs (and really, I think the stronger argument to be made here is about energy, not raw speed, and where the argument might fall apart is the historical fact that compute tends to become more energy-efficient over time).
Not sure whether the breathing/murder analogy is apt, but I get where you're coming from and I would probably agree that a blanket restriction on computer speed wouldn't be appropriate.
I don't know if it's a bad idea or not, but I'm struggling to understand how the idea as presented in the post would be a violation of fundamental human rights. Do you care to elaborate?
Though no one cares, I feel compelled to put down my 2 cents.
Such a "speed limit" is an unfathomably bad idea, in every way, and moreover is a violation of fundamental human rights. I deeply oppose it. That is all.
> Though no one cares, I feel compelled to put down my 2 cents.
I am not sure if you are insulting everyone who reads your point, or your own ability to communicate.
But maybe interpret the ideas less as a dichotomy you can't untangle and so must reject, which is a fragile place to reason from, and instead identify what are good points, what are not, and improve upon either.
Because there is certainly a great deal of truth to the problems being addressed.
What truth? The whole article is absurd. Speed limits exist to reduce fatalities, not reduce inequality. Road speed limits in my area have been increasing, not decreasing, as road designs have improved. Distance didn't scale with speed either - the West was settled well before the automobile.
I'm still thinking through this and you seem to have strong opinions. What do you think of speed limits for cars and e-bikes?
Well, to start with, If you drive your car too fast, you might kill people. If you drive your computer too fast, it might get data corruption and/or reboot unexpectedly.
Or you might build a data center that poisons a community's water and drives up the cost of energy for your neighbors. We can't pretend there are zero negative externalities that accompany unconstrained compute.
To be clear I'm not necessarily agreeing with the idea, but to be fair, there's more to it than you're suggesting.
There's a great deal of demand for compute. Data centers are a very efficient way of providing that compute in a single place with limited resources. If computers were restricted to being slower and less efficient than they are now, people would build even more, and larger, data centers.
How does a person running a computer too fast cause them to build a building? Maybe make that part illegal, not the indirect cause. Otherwise we may wanna outlaw breathing, it may cause people to murder.
Like I said, I don't necessarily agree with the idea and I don't feel strongly enough about it to really argue in its favor, but to answer the question: the same reason why OpenAI doesn't operate out of Sam Altman's garage.
At a certain level of compute you need specialized infrastructure -- such as a purpose-built datacenter -- for the energy needs (and really, I think the stronger argument to be made here is about energy, not raw speed, and where the argument might fall apart is the historical fact that compute tends to become more energy-efficient over time).
Not sure whether the breathing/murder analogy is apt, but I get where you're coming from and I would probably agree that a blanket restriction on computer speed wouldn't be appropriate.
I don't know if it's a bad idea or not, but I'm struggling to understand how the idea as presented in the post would be a violation of fundamental human rights. Do you care to elaborate?
We have speed limits for vehicles because speed kills.
In computing, waiting kills (indirectly, by wasting time). Speed is life.
Some roads have minimum speed limits. If we're talking about limits, that's the kind of limit we want.
I like the idea, and it reminded me that the „Vim book“ had the subtitle: „Edit text at the speed of thought“.
How much faster should an ‚automated thinking‘ than a ‚manual thinking‘ be (allowed to be)?