Guest guest Posted October 1, 2005 Report Share Posted October 1, 2005 His premise of technological increases is starting to fail. Having a computer that would match the capabilitis of the human brain, at today's technological level, would still be a massive device, and that would just be one. So much of what the tech advances are based on are the continued reduction of semiconductor sizings and density. In years past, the these have been impressive, but for many applications, the reductions are running into the laws of physics, which is slowing down advances. That and the costs increase dramatically to achieve the next level of reduction and component density. I can't speak about many of the subjects he is extrapolating, but the semiconductor advances that are at the base of some of the things he says, I do have an intimate knowledge of. Best, Don White Seguin, Tx Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 1, 2005 Report Share Posted October 1, 2005 His premise of technological increases is starting to fail. Having a computer that would match the capabilitis of the human brain, at today's technological level, would still be a massive device, and that would just be one. So much of what the tech advances are based on are the continued reduction of semiconductor sizings and density. In years past, the these have been impressive, but for many applications, the reductions are running into the laws of physics, which is slowing down advances. That and the costs increase dramatically to achieve the next level of reduction and component density. I can't speak about many of the subjects he is extrapolating, but the semiconductor advances that are at the base of some of the things he says, I do have an intimate knowledge of. Best, Don White Seguin, Tx Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 2, 2005 Report Share Posted October 2, 2005 Don White wrote: > His premise of technological increases is starting to fail. Having a > computer that would match > the capabilitis of the human brain, at today's technological level, > would still be a massive > device, and that would just be one. So much of what the tech advances > are based on are > the continued reduction of semiconductor sizings and density. In years > past, the these have > been impressive, but for many applications, the reductions are running > into the laws of > physics, which is slowing down advances. That and the costs increase > dramatically to > achieve the next level of reduction and component density. > > I can't speak about many of the subjects he is extrapolating, but the > semiconductor advances > that are at the base of some of the things he says, I do have an > intimate knowledge of. > > Best, > Don White > Seguin, Tx > > > > It seems they've been predicting the failure of 's law (?) for decades and like the energizer bunny, process engineers manage to keep increasing chip density. It must seem impossible beyond the next level or two of density improvement, if it didn't we'd probably be working on that instead of the next mere reduction by one-half or whatever. Except for portable memory applications designers are probably shifting their focus somewhat from density to other areas like reduced leakage to save power and/or alternate architectures. In a relatively brief time period we have seen computers go from novelties, to necessities, to ubiquitous. We don't need another hole in the bottom of our energy boat. I am not trying to defend Kurzweil (boy inventor). I don't have much interest in his recently acquired expertise and theories since he discovered he was eating himself to death and that type II diabetes could be managed by diet (good for him BTW). Some would say that making a computer smarter than a human has already been done (for some humans), but to spank the chess grand masters may require a leap in software design (perhaps a variant on evolutionary machine programming) but I'm not so sure I want to see that unleashed in a large way. Sounds like material for some bad science fiction, or worse. I guess you could always program in Isaac Asimov's robot rules but really smart people seem to think that rules don't apply to them, I'd hate to meet a truly smart machine. Sorry for the wasted bandwidth. I wish Ray would spend his fame promoting the reversibility of lifestyle maladies rather than increased expectations of gee whiz science to the rescue. JR Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 2, 2005 Report Share Posted October 2, 2005 Don White wrote: > His premise of technological increases is starting to fail. Having a > computer that would match > the capabilitis of the human brain, at today's technological level, > would still be a massive > device, and that would just be one. So much of what the tech advances > are based on are > the continued reduction of semiconductor sizings and density. In years > past, the these have > been impressive, but for many applications, the reductions are running > into the laws of > physics, which is slowing down advances. That and the costs increase > dramatically to > achieve the next level of reduction and component density. > > I can't speak about many of the subjects he is extrapolating, but the > semiconductor advances > that are at the base of some of the things he says, I do have an > intimate knowledge of. > > Best, > Don White > Seguin, Tx > > > > It seems they've been predicting the failure of 's law (?) for decades and like the energizer bunny, process engineers manage to keep increasing chip density. It must seem impossible beyond the next level or two of density improvement, if it didn't we'd probably be working on that instead of the next mere reduction by one-half or whatever. Except for portable memory applications designers are probably shifting their focus somewhat from density to other areas like reduced leakage to save power and/or alternate architectures. In a relatively brief time period we have seen computers go from novelties, to necessities, to ubiquitous. We don't need another hole in the bottom of our energy boat. I am not trying to defend Kurzweil (boy inventor). I don't have much interest in his recently acquired expertise and theories since he discovered he was eating himself to death and that type II diabetes could be managed by diet (good for him BTW). Some would say that making a computer smarter than a human has already been done (for some humans), but to spank the chess grand masters may require a leap in software design (perhaps a variant on evolutionary machine programming) but I'm not so sure I want to see that unleashed in a large way. Sounds like material for some bad science fiction, or worse. I guess you could always program in Isaac Asimov's robot rules but really smart people seem to think that rules don't apply to them, I'd hate to meet a truly smart machine. Sorry for the wasted bandwidth. I wish Ray would spend his fame promoting the reversibility of lifestyle maladies rather than increased expectations of gee whiz science to the rescue. JR Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.