For everyone drowning in data yet still diving deeper
Prologue: This is not a technical book
This is a record of a real conversation.
An inquirer and a respondent. Starting from "What's the difference between RAM and flash memory?", the questioning journeyed all the way to "Why are humans unwilling to reach consensus?"
Technology is just the entry point. The real question is:
Why do we store so much data?
If you've ever stared at a full hard drive at midnight, wondering what to keep and what to delete; if you've noticed the AI boom is creating more digital garbage than ever before — this book is for you.
Volume I: Foundations — What Are We Talking About?
- RAM, Flash, and Hard Drives RAM (Random Access Memory) : The workbench. Gone when power is cut. Handles "how many things can run at once."
Flash Memory : The building block. The core chip that stores 0s and 1s.
Hard Drives (SSD/HDD) : The finished product. Permanent warehouses. SSDs use flash memory; HDDs don't.
In short: RAM is temporary memory. Hard drives are long-term memory. Flash is the brick that hard drives are made of.
- Structured vs. Unstructured Structured data : What fits in an Excel spreadsheet. Names, ages, employee IDs.
Unstructured data : Images, videos, documents, chat logs.
The storage crisis brought by the AI boom isn't from too much structured data, but from unstructured data — things that can't be directly put into tables — growing exponentially.
- Virtual vs. Physical Path One : Data in, data out. An AI-generated image, a paragraph of AI-written text.
Path Two : Data in, physical out. AI-designed gears sent to a machine shop to become real parts.
Here's the question: Does Path One have "practical value"?
The answer is: Yes. Because it saves time, and time is life itself.
But the inquirer didn't stop there. He asked a tougher question:
"Why do we need that image? Is it for the sake of some future physical product?"
The answer to this question pushed the entire conversation deeper.
Volume II: Inquiry — The Justification of Results
- If it doesn't lead to something physical, what's the meaning of that image? There are two scenarios:
Scenario A : Image → Printed as a poster → Sells physical goods.
Scenario B : Image → Sold as a digital collectible / Downloaded as wallpaper / Makes someone happy.
In Scenario A, the image is a "component," the physical product is the "finished good." In Scenario B, the image itself is the finished good.
In the digital age, information itself is the ultimate consumer product. The text you're reading, the short videos you scroll through, the music you listen to — none of them become physical objects, yet you need them. The need itself is value.
- Then what after it's created? Store it? The inquirer said:
"Create it, store it, never look at it again" — that's data garbage.
Yes. AI produces garbage every day. This is a real problem.
- So how should results be handled? The inquirer derived the answer himself:
Results can be stored. Results are only used to verify the quality of the next production process, or to compare whether the next result is better, to evolve the method, and to use this result as the standard for the next production.
This is the closed loop of the scientific method:
Store results → Not as possession, but as "evidence"
Use evidence → To verify the quality of new methods
Compare old and new → To determine if it's better
If better → Use the new result as the new standard, evolve the method
Loop → The method becomes more powerful
Conclusion: The only justification for results is as a feedback mechanism for method evolution. Any other storage is waste.
Volume III: Deeper — Method vs. Data
- Since storing methods is correct, why store data itself? The inquirer asked a question that silenced all engineers:
"Why store data itself, instead of letting methods accumulate?"
Theoretically, it's correct. Storing "Lego instructions" is more efficient than storing "Lego castles."
Three obstacles in reality:
Regeneration requires time, computing power, and money. If you need the castle every second and each rebuild takes 10 minutes — it's not worth it.
Methods need data to evolve. Data is the "food" of methods. Without food, methods starve.
Methods aren't omnipotent. What they regenerate may be 99% the same as the original, but that 1% difference can be fatal in certain scenarios.
- Then for the progress of civilization, do we still talk about cost-benefit? The inquirer asked again:
"Is there even a concept of cost-benefit in the progress of civilization?"
This strike pierced the foundation of all "practical arguments."
Yes, from the highest perspective of civilization, there isn't.
Cost-benefit is the logic of the present, the local, the commercial. Civilizational progress is the logic of the long-term, the holistic, the transcendent.
The Wright brothers building airplanes had no "cost-benefit" for years. The Apollo program cost a fortune and brought back rocks with zero economic return. But they advanced civilization.
The essence of civilizational progress is constantly breaking through existing "cost-benefit" frameworks.
- Therefore, true civilizational advancement should store methods The inquirer stated his final judgment:
"True civilizational advancement is absolutely about storing methods. Everything else is a grotesque product of human greed."
From a pure, transcendent perspective of civilizational evolution — he may be right.
A civilization that only stores methods:
Doesn't worry about "where to put data," only asks "what are the fundamental laws of this phenomenon"
Doesn't accumulate petabytes of "historical surveillance footage," only iterates "behavior prediction models"
Doesn't preserve "every painting ever painted," only refines "aesthetic generation algorithms"
That would be an extremely refined, extremely efficient, extremely future-oriented civilization. It lives in capability, not memory.
Volume IV: The Wall of Human Nature
- Unfortunately, humans are unwilling to reach consensus The inquirer said at the end:
"Unfortunately, humans are unwilling to reach consensus on this matter."
This isn't a technical problem, nor a logical problem. It's a human nature problem.
Reason One: Fear-driven
"What if we need it later?"
"What if the method fails?"
"What if the law comes investigating?"
In the face of "possible risks," reason gives way to fear.
Reason Two: Possessiveness-driven
Data = Assets = Power = Money.
"You want me to delete it? Why?"
In the face of greed, "burn after use" goes against human nature.
Reason Three: Laziness-driven
Refine methods? Too tiring.
Design verification loops? Too troublesome.
Just add another hard drive? Simple, cheap, done.
Reason Four: Emotion-driven
That photo from 10 years ago — what "method" value does it have? None.
But it made you cry. You want me to delete it? How dare you.
Your logic is perfect for a "rational civilization." But humans are not just rational beings — they are emotional beings too.
Most of the data we store isn't for "evolving methods." It's for fighting against forgetting. Proving we existed.
Epilogue: Both Sides of the Wall
This conversation started with technology, passed through logic, economics, and civilization, and finally hit the wall of human nature.
On this side of the wall : The human reality. Chaotic, redundant, fearful, greedy, lazy, emotional. But it's also the world that has that old photo — the one that makes you cry.
On the other side of the wall : The inquirer's ideal world. Clean, efficient, forward-looking. Storing only methods. Burning after use.
Which side do you choose to stand on?
This isn't a technical question. It's a question about what kind of person you want to be — and what kind of civilization you want.
Appendix: Principles Drawn by the Inquirer Himself
If you agree with the direction of "storing methods" but live in the reality of "storing data," here are actionable principles derived by the inquirer himself:
Storage Content Purpose Lifecycle
Methods Core asset, for production Retain permanently, evolve continuously
Standard Results Validation benchmark, for comparison Retain as "milestones"
Ordinary Output Results One-time output of production process Delete after verifying new methods
The only justification for results is as a feedback mechanism for method evolution.
Afterword: To the Reader
Every word in this book comes from a real conversation.
The inquirer has no name. Neither does the respondent. One digs constantly forward. The other is forced to think deeply.
If during reading you feel a certain "hit home" sting — it's because the inquirer is also shouting inside you:
"Can we live a little lighter?"
The answer isn't in the book. It's in every choice you make next. To store or not to store.
May you store methods, forget data.
May you also have the courage to keep that old photo — the one that makes you cry.
Top comments (0)