Why hasn't the Singularity gone mainstream (yet?) (power, advance, performance)
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Your statement has already been proven wrong. Just look at the latest paradigm shift.
This is from the Pueblo Chieftain:
SAN FRANCISCO — The digital domain is creeping off our desktops and onto our bodies, from music players that match your tunes to your heart beat, to mood sweaters that change color depending on your emotional state. “Everyone agrees the race is just beginning, and I think we’re going to see some very, very big leaps in just the next year,” said tech entrepreneur Manish Chandra at a wearable technology conference and fashion show in San Francisco Monday.
Wearable technologies have long been a sideshow to mainstream laptop and smartphones, but this year Google’s glasses and rumors of Apple’s iWatch are popularizing the field.
So computers are not only continuing to advance exponentially but they are actually advancing faster then ever before. That is why in the 2020's the paradigm shift will be from wearable computers to computers inside our bodies and that is when we will merge with computers and the singularity by 2030.
Now as I have posted More's law will come to an end in the 2020's. I have read sometime between 2022 and 2028 when transistor densities are around 5nm. However that is not new as we are on the 5th paradigm already since the first modern computer was built in 1890 so all we will do is move on to the next paradigm, 3D self organizing molecular structures, and computers will continue to advance exponentially.
I think one of the reasons many people are so shocked at the end of the ingratiated circuit is because it has been around so long. It was first developed in the 1960's well before many people were born so that is all they know. Even me at 40 the integrated circuit has been around longer then I have been alive. If you look at the first 4 paradigms they did not last as long so I don't think people were surprised when they moved to a new one plus there was no internet back then so people were not able to talk about it or do as much research on it as we are today. So while this might seem like its going to be a big deal its really not, just like when we went from vacuum tubes to transistors or transistors to the integrated circuit, and computers will keep doing what they have been doing since 1890, advancing exponentially.
You didn't address the data I discussed, you simply point to a forecast.
You didn't address the data I discussed, you simply point to a forecast.
A forecast does not rebut data. Ever.
(for the record, the post I quote was #970).
This is what you posted:
Quote:
Originally Posted by ncole1
No, my argument is they already have stopped. Even if they will at some point in the future restart, the continuous exponential has been broken.
The fact is computers are still advancing exponentially and are speeding up not stopping. All of the data backs it up. Here is a book that talks about it. This review is from MIT:
Location: where you sip the tea of the breasts of the spinsters of Utica
8,297 posts, read 14,164,711 times
Reputation: 8105
It's silly to type on computers that are continually getting more powerful, even in small handheld devices, and insist that information technology isn't advancing. There's a huge difference between now and the world I grew up in, especially in technology - which some people seem to shrug off.
It's silly to type on computers that are continually getting more powerful, even in small handheld devices, and insist that information technology isn't advancing. There's a huge difference between now and the world I grew up in, especially in technology - which some people seem to shrug off.
Agreed. The Sony play station has more processing capability then the US government did in the early 1990's. So not only are computers still advancing exponentially that rate is going faster. Why anyone would try to make a argument against that is beyond me.
I happen to run across this picture which illustrates how fast information technology is advancing.
Last edited by Josseppie; 08-09-2014 at 11:27 AM..
Agreed. The Sony play station has more processing capability then the US government did in the early 1990's. So not only are computers still advancing exponentially that rate is going faster. Why anyone would try to make a argument against that is beyond me.
I happen to run across this picture which illustrates how fast information technology is advancing.
I never said that there hasn't been progress.
What I said was that CPU speed has levelled off since 2003 and you have repeatedly dodged the point. You could show me a billion articles about technological milestones, and it wouldn't matter. You have not addressed my point. You said CPU speed was increasing, I said it has levelled off. You give me a forecast, an article without data, and some discussion of technological improvements in storage capacity, which is not the same thing as CPU speed.
You still have not addressed my point that single-core CPU speed has flatlined since 2003. No number of articles about other things like storage or wireless technology is relevant. These are not the same as CPU speed!
What I said was that CPU speed has levelled off since 2003 and you have repeatedly dodged the point. You could show me a billion articles about technological milestones, and it wouldn't matter. You have not addressed my point. You said CPU speed was increasing, I said it has levelled off. You give me a forecast, an article without data, and some discussion of technological improvements in storage capacity, which is not the same thing as CPU speed.
You still have not addressed my point that single-core CPU speed has flatlined since 2003. No number of articles about other things like storage or wireless technology is relevant. These are not the same as CPU speed!
Did you not see my last post. In the picture it has CPU speed in 2005 versus 2014 and it has continued to advance exponentially.
However since you do not like my links you give me a link that says computers have stopped advancing exponentially.
For me, the computer has gotten smaller and I still have all four laptops, one requiring repair and one iffy. I don't want to deal with things like touch screens, enough of a confusion on the phone which I have only because you cant get simple phones which are new over remanufacuted.
Basically I started out on bbs's. I read and posted messages. I still do, but on web based boards.
I read and send email. Ditto from the first time we singed up for earthlink in the early 90's
I write stories, still using word perfect. Post them but on web based places but would LOVE to have alt.startrek.creative back again.
I store pictures. Stored pictures then.
The one thing I do now that I didn't then is watch videos. Modems weren't fast enough then. And I do a lot of online purchaseing since we have a walmart in town....
So most of what I do on my toys are the same things I did in 1986 when I got my first computer. The others things were mostly faster with videos and used to live where there actually were more stores. The system used for purchasing hasn't changed much, just gotten bigger, since the early 90's.
Not everyone who uses computers is exactly reaching for this singularity. I don't thingk I want to be merged with replicators anyway.
Not everyone who uses computers is exactly reaching for this singularity. I don't think I want to be merged with replicators anyway.
I actually do not disagree with this. In fact most people do not even understand what the singularity is let alone counting down the days till its here like I am. I will take it one step further. I have noticed that even the people who believe in the singularity do not fully grasp what it means to all aspects of society. Its going to be that rapid and cause society to change fundamentally on every level that it makes it very hard to fully understand. As much as I study it I still learn new aspects about the singularity almost every day.
I, also, think most people today if asked would be like you and unsure if they want to merge with computers. However come the 2030's I do not think anyone will have a choice. I do not mean there will be laws, I would be against that, but in order to keep up with basic society people will have to merge with computers or everything around them will not make sense. Much like a 5 year old looking at the world today.
You don't know the difference between storage capacity and CPU speed?
Oh ok. So you are arguing that "software" is "stuck in the mud" as Ray Kurzweil puts it.
In The Singularity Is Near, I address this issue at length, citing different methods of measuring complexity and capability in software that demonstrate a similar exponential growth. One recent study (“Report to the President and Congress, Designing a Digital Future: Federally Funded Research and Development in Networking and Information Technology” by the President’s Council of Advisors on Science and Technology) states the following:
“Even more remarkable — and even less widely understood — is that in many areas, performance gains due to improvements in algorithms have vastly exceeded even the dramatic performance gains due to increased processor speed. The algorithms that we use today for speech recognition, for natural language translation, for chess playing, for logistics planning, have evolved remarkably in the past decade … Here is just one example, provided by Professor Martin Grötschel of Konrad-Zuse-Zentrum für Informationstechnik Berlin. Grötschel, an expert in optimization, observes that a benchmark production planning model solved using linear programming would have taken 82 years to solve in 1988, using the computers and the linear programming algorithms of the day. Fifteen years later—in 2003—this same model could be solved in roughly one minute, an improvement by a factor of roughly 43 million. Of this, a factor of roughly 1,000 was due to increased processor speed, whereas a factor of roughly 43,000 was due to improvements in algorithms! Grötschel also cites an algorithmic improvement of roughly 30,000 for mixed integer programming between 1991 and 2008. The design and analysis of algorithms, and the study of the inherent computational complexity of problems, are fundamental subfields of computer science.” I cite many other examples like this in the book.
The fact is computers continue to advance at a exponintial rate and that curve is getting faster as well. That is why since that article was written smart phones have continued to get faster and faster and we now have Google glass and they are working on contacts with computers on them. In fact a recent paper I read said that by 2025 a computer the size of a atom will have the same processing speed as a desk top computer in 2014. Then as Ray Kurzweil points out software will keep up. It will happen.
Last edited by Josseppie; 08-10-2014 at 09:04 AM..
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
