(I get that you're being ironic.)
I do.
Specifically because of who doesn't.
My neighborhood is across the street from a company that specializes in the repair of hydraulic hammers, a water treatment plant, paper mill and recycling center and a freight rail so we've got it pretty good as is but I see no reason not to continue improving.
In this respect there is very little difference between a NIMBY getting mad about a data center and getting mad about a new housing development that will make the area more crowded and use more water.
The only difference is that you yourself are mad about data centers. If you are a YIMBY generally-speaking try to see how the anger you feel about data centers is like the anger your opponents have about new housing, and let that empathy make you a more effective YIMBY.
It sounds more like you are saying YIMBY but imagining MIMBY (maybe in my ...) where you've just replaced those other guys making the decisions with your own cabal?
Relaxing zoning laws never meant throwing them completely out the window. It has always been a matter of pruning zoning rules that overly restrict land use to the point that minor deviation from the norm is impossible.
Isn't it simpler to believe that people like Terrance Tao who have been in good standing with the academic community for a long time are telling the truth? Like you may very well disagree with their predictions based on your lived experience or theories... But it doesn't take some crazy leap of faith to follow their logic of "AI could get better at fundamental/ applied STEM research than humans -> we can scale this up exponentially -> scaled up human level or super human level research will lead to major scientific breakthroughs".
Like sure CEO's like Amodei/ Altman/ and Musk may have an incentive to hype things up but not every opinion by every smart person has to be part of some grand conspiracy.
Lost me here. It usually means something will require exponentially more resources, and eventually a finite limit (money, time, raw materials, land, energy, lifespan, speed of light, etc) will be hit.
That doesn't mean were going to go right to Dyson spheres so that every possible molecule is going towards scaling.
> AI could get better at fundamental/ applied STEM research than humans -> we can scale this up exponentially -> scaled up human level or super human level research will lead to major scientific breakthroughs".
Again, this is a misapprehension of the technology itself and its most ideal use cases. Any software producing stochastic or probabilistic output and cannot produce verifiable, repeatable, and predictable data cannot fundamentally replace something that requires a high level of proof and validation. If you do this, you will expend valuable resources verifying the output that would be better spent just verifying the inputs in the first place. I'm no Luddite and I do think AI is cool and incredible technology. If you reframed that sentence as "AI could get better at taking the busywork and tedium out of fundamental/ applied STEM research than humans -> we can scale this up exponentially -> leveraging human strengths with AI's super-human strengths at assorting and analyzing information will lead to major scientific breakthroughs" then I would have absolutely no issue with it. But the marketing copy never says that and instead frames it as "AI can do anything a human can do and better," which is a) patently untrue, and b) suggests a very troubling agenda that the big corporations will have to answer for at some point or another.
> Any software producing stochastic or probabilistic output and cannot produce verifiable, repeatable, and predictable data cannot fundamentally replace something that requires a high level of proof and validation
Human output is also stochastic and probabilistic - our brains are not deterministic software. There is no fundamental reason we couldn't replace the human role in research with some form of AI (LLM or otherwise) if AI keeps improving.
Socialized risk and privatized profit is the default. AI isn't going to change that. If it is as successful as the hype, it's going to exacerbate it.
I was really expecting a /s at the end of this, but that'll do pig. that'll do