Comments on: Ask Ray | The future of Moore’s law

By: JustDavid

JustDavid — Tue, 06 Jan 2015 23:57:07 +0000

The bright side of the dark side is that obsolete tech keeps poor people and children in touch. When I read of new gadgets, I think ‘Goody! I’ll be finding these in the dumpster in a couple years.’

By: gs4mac

gs4mac — Mon, 17 Nov 2014 18:31:51 +0000

Let’s face it, the real dark side of the law of accelerating returns is accelerated obsolescence:

http://vimeo.com/14388358

By: Durk

Durk — Thu, 01 Aug 2013 18:27:37 +0000

I am a freelance portrait artist whose annual income is probably less than $7000. Yet I own at least six computers, three of which are multiprocessor base. Trickle down or not I have benefited from advances in technology.

By: axel

axel — Mon, 15 Jul 2013 13:48:42 +0000

Most jobs that existed 70 years ago are rendered obsolete due to new technologies. New technologies mean new jobs. Take for instance augmented reality, that is on the verge of a break-through, it will open up a whole new world. At least for developers and marketing. :)

By: Ed Pell

Ed Pell — Sun, 07 Jul 2013 19:27:45 +0000

The price points have to do with what is profitable for the seller and will have enough willing buyers. If you just want to make call you can buy a $30 cell phone.

By: Gabor

Gabor — Thu, 27 Jun 2013 17:08:05 +0000

Exactly right!! Smartphone prices are misleading. They are not phones anymore but computers that costed thousands of dollars 5 years ago. And 5 years from now they will easily surpass (and likely replace) the best desktops of today and still be in the $5-600 price range. They do get more hardware in them, too, all the time (although it’s not always obvious but transistors are getting smaller and much larger in numbers within).
Non-smart “Cell Phones” are actually free (or almost free) now at major providers as long as you pay for a minimum plan.

By: DAG

DAG — Thu, 27 Jun 2013 00:51:14 +0000

Phones’ computational abilities are drastically increasing. Today I can tell my cell phone to do an internet search, find and start streaming an HD video in seconds, access all of my contacts, calendar, and emails instantly and seamlessly, search a world-wide map quickly and get moment-by-moment navigation on a whim (for driving, bicycling, or walking)… I can search and instantly listen to more HD music than I’ll ever have time to listen to… and the list goes on. Most of this was unimaginable to the general public just a few short years ago. Ten years from now our phones will probably be doing things we can hardly imagine now.

By: GatorALLin

GatorALLin — Wed, 26 Jun 2013 02:01:21 +0000

So why are cell phones still at $500 value every single year? Sure the features go up with the number of apps available, but that is software, not hardware. Sure you get a $200 phone, but you sign up for a $99/year family plan for 2 years, so that is $2,400 and thus you really pay $600 for your phone every 2 years. Are we as customers just getting sucked into a marketing gimmick and thus cell phones are in a bubble of some sort……??

By: Positron

Positron — Tue, 25 Jun 2013 10:51:44 +0000

Kuzweil says that the rich get technologies when they don’t work. Initially life extension technologies will likely be out of reach for many but eventually it will be cheaply available to everyone.

http://arstechnica.com/business/2013/06/google-director-early-adoption-is-for-rich-chumps/

By: dj

dj — Mon, 24 Jun 2013 20:27:24 +0000

This is why we must change our mentality from the profit orientation that you see today to a system that considers all. A system that claims all of the earths resources a common heritage to all members of this planet. That is how the coming singularity will be the singularity that ray truly envisions.

By: glen

glen — Sun, 23 Jun 2013 22:43:35 +0000

What about the average elite or elite average person?

By: Jesus Christ

Jesus Christ — Sun, 23 Jun 2013 15:00:22 +0000

I doubt that any technology to extend human life will be available to just anybody, it will most likely be only available to the elite mega rich. The elite don’t want the average person living forever creating an even worse over population problem and draining ever dwindling resources.

By: Jack Richardson

Jack Richardson — Sat, 22 Jun 2013 11:33:37 +0000

After three more doublings, there is likely to be significant changes even in the service, entertainment, and professional worlds.

One can imagine going to a McDonalds, placing one’s order with a realistic human on a screen, having it cooked and delivered automatically, and paid with a pass of one’s smart phone.

In the entertainment world, it will be almost impossible to tell the difference between computer-generated characters and real people.

In the professional worlds, legal research as well as many other kinds of research will be done by intelligent apps. In hospitals, more and more operations will be done in a robotic environment that will be more precise and dependable. One could go on and on.

By: karl

karl — Fri, 21 Jun 2013 17:14:49 +0000

Thru Silicon Via — google the terminology

Basically stacking chipset components vertically and connections are through viaducts in the stacked components.

Cuts power consumption and heat at the same time (less voltage needed because distance between components is negligable — and with less voltage comes less radiant heat)

By: karl

karl — Fri, 21 Jun 2013 17:12:27 +0000

I think you may need to caveat your statement.

Robots and automation may render most manual labor and manufacturing jobs obsolete. The service industry , entertainment industry , and the professions will likely remain unaffected until strong AI

By: Sett

Sett — Fri, 21 Jun 2013 15:04:43 +0000

Increasing computing power? Ridiculous!
Paranormal superpowers? Coming soon!

..right.

By: pt

pt — Mon, 17 Jun 2013 04:45:55 +0000

Graphene cores + highly parallel processing would seem to take it beyond 2020, though I suppose once quantum computers start getting to extreme numbers of qubits, it’s no contest…so it may just be that quantum pcs will be improving faster than graphene processors will be able to compete with. That whole doubling processing power for every qubit added thing is a pretty absurd advantage.

By: Jack Reeve

Jack Reeve — Sun, 16 Jun 2013 07:35:37 +0000

At the molecular level, digital is still analog. There is no end to accelerating returns. I just love that we are here to see the new beginning. That it is unimaginable at only 40-50 years out is to me an irresistible concept. I await that golden day – the day after the day that each day’s technology extends my life by one day. That day, my friends, is a day of magic. Have a nice day.

By: me

me — Sat, 08 Jun 2013 07:16:05 +0000

But fully analog requires new software.

A polinary, digital computer can be designed to be transparent to software. If a transistor is doing the work of 2 or more transistors, the software doesn’t need to know.

By: Clark

Clark — Fri, 07 Jun 2013 16:01:31 +0000

Better to go directly to full analog for appropriate computations. See http://www.amazon.com/Analog-VLSI-Neural-Systems-Carver/dp/0201059924 for a good introduction to established state of the art.

By: r. m. dobbs

r. m. dobbs — Thu, 06 Jun 2013 14:02:27 +0000

Peter, you’re too novel not to survive somehow.

By: Marraco

Marraco — Sun, 02 Jun 2013 23:35:46 +0000

The brain is a physical device, which processes information. So, is possible to make an intelligent physical device which processes information.

By: Boy

Boy — Sun, 02 Jun 2013 08:28:28 +0000

what about special chips, in the cloud that can do some specifi kind of job very well, somehow the internet of special chips in cloud my become, new procesor?

By: Robert Duckmanton

Robert Duckmanton — Sat, 01 Jun 2013 23:42:49 +0000

A fallacious analogy. The brain is not a computer. It is an evolutionary device to maintain complex organisms in complex, constantly changing environments in optimal health. We know for a fact that it is the source of mind and consciousness, which so far we are not able to suppose in relation to computers, however fast.

By: Jack Richardson

Jack Richardson — Sat, 01 Jun 2013 11:33:20 +0000

This is an example of how a new kind of software can provide the doubling that you would get from 3d hardware.

By: Marraco

Marraco — Sat, 01 Jun 2013 08:25:16 +0000

The brain is a computer, so we know that is possible

By: Marraco

Marraco — Sat, 01 Jun 2013 08:20:32 +0000

I suspect that the most promising new paradigm is multivalued logic (google it). Think of polinary transistors instead of binary ones.

Is not a new concept, a trinary computer named Setun was made in the 50′s.

A 4 states transistor could emulate 2 binary ones, on the same space, without need of further miniaturization.

Multivalued logic is already working on MLC flash memory.

Instead of reducing the size of transistors, this new paradigm would progress by raising the number of states with each generation. it would go from binary to 4-ary, 8-ary, 16-ary…

By: Cybernettr

Cybernettr — Sat, 01 Jun 2013 03:52:46 +0000

Reading the comments on the original article, it’s amazing how many “techie” types are unaware that the end of Moore’s Law doesn’t at all signal the end of the doubling of the price/performance of computer technology! Most people are shockingly clueless when it comes to the technological future.

Perhaps when Moore’s Law runs out, Kurzweil’s LOAR will take it’s place as the de facto term to describe the continuing exponential growth of information technology.

By: Cybernettr

Cybernettr — Sat, 01 Jun 2013 02:13:20 +0000

…And in India there are more smartphones with Internet access than commodes. Personally, if I had to choose one or the other I would choose the latter.

By: Ron

Ron — Sat, 01 Jun 2013 02:05:13 +0000

Dr.(?) Richard, maybe you are only 20 something but I can see huge changes in my lifetime. If you think I could have made a phone call anywhere I wanted from a small mobile computer while checking the news and weather when I was 25, you would be dreaming. I used the internet on a 300 bps modem and my 25 Mbps connection sure beats the hell out of that.

By: Tom

Tom — Fri, 31 May 2013 17:40:17 +0000

competition, of course.
By creating what out-competes us.
Nothing new here.
Billions of species have been doing this for billions of years by creating the mutated offspring that eventually replaces them.
Why should we be any different?
HOW we will be different is that we may create a new type of life.
But, unless we manage to become a part of this new type of life, we will be doomed to going the way of all species.

By: Boy

Boy — Fri, 31 May 2013 13:07:08 +0000

how about power? in 3d chips?

By: Jack Richardson

Jack Richardson — Fri, 31 May 2013 12:42:07 +0000

Possibly you have in mind a version of the Gaia notion of Earth as a conscious entity that is evolving from the life forms that it has generated up to this point. As humanity takes control of biological evolution in coming decades, Gaia may control the direction this takes. At the same time, AI will be advancing beyond the point where humans can keep up, but will Gaia be able to keep up? Or is Gaia a small part of a larger conscious solar system?

By: tedhowardnz

tedhowardnz — Fri, 31 May 2013 09:05:32 +0000

Hi Peter
I was given a 50% probability of living 5 months 3 years ago (advanced metastasised melanoma).
See my blog for what I did.
I am tumour free.
Short version, take high dose vitamin C – heaped teaspoon in glass of water twice a day, and 1/4 tsp in glass of water every waking hour in between; and remove all animal protein from your diet. Not easy, and I am still here.
My medical records at http://www.tedhowardnz.com/about, and what I did diet-wise at http://www.tedhowardnz.com/cancer

Best of luck.
I can be done.
It isn’t easy.
Give it your best shot.
Ted

By: VovixLDR

VovixLDR — Fri, 31 May 2013 00:11:26 +0000

Although I doubt if it makes sense to reply to your comment at all, but are you really so blind to the reality that you cannot imagine e. g. quantum computer but still believe in paranormality and “religion as development”?

> I tell you it’s just nonsense. Computers cannot become little as an atom nor they can become conscious. That’s why Singularity will not happen

BRILLIANT ARGUMENTATION! “It cannot be because it can never be!”

By: franco

franco — Thu, 30 May 2013 21:23:35 +0000

What if there is not another paradigm after microchips? Do you really believe we can store a computer data and capabilities inside an atom? How exactly?
And do you really believe we can upload our minds inside a computer like “Tron” and still be alice and conscious? I tell you it’s just nonsense. Computers cannot become little as an atom nor they can become conscious. That’s why Singularity will not happen and next development of our species will be exploring paranormal powers and spirituality and religion.

By: Peter Kinnon

Peter Kinnon — Thu, 30 May 2013 20:47:37 +0000

Actually, Jack, I do not propose that human minds will migrate to the next phase of the “life” process. Rather that this new entity is evolving autonomously within collective human imagination. A very different concept.
This evolutionary process is not limited to technology, or even to biology but can be traced at least as far back as the evolution of the chemical elements in stars and supernovae.

By: A J

A J — Thu, 30 May 2013 19:06:39 +0000

Thanks for mentioning D-Wave.
Too bad QC is not mentioned here (in the Ask Ray).

By: Michael E. Arth

Michael E. Arth — Thu, 30 May 2013 15:46:49 +0000

Robots and automation will quickly render most jobs obsolete. At some point, we should have a guaranteed minimum income (GMI) and national health care. Look at it as a royalty on the common technological heritage that is no different than distributing the benefits from any other commonly-shared heritage (like oil found under public land).

The GMI should also include free education, because smart (and enhanced) people will be able to give something back to society. We will also need choice-based, marketable birth credits to stop or reverse population growth because people will live longer–at least until they upload their minds into cyberspace or whatever it is that we will do. A GMI will help smooth the passage from human to post-human.

By: Rok

Rok — Thu, 30 May 2013 12:41:34 +0000

What is the objective mathematical formula for law of acelerating return or are we changing over time what are we calculate, so the formula is ok?

By: eldras

eldras — Thu, 30 May 2013 11:45:38 +0000

Good effort Peter. Very hard to see with increasing perspectives on cosmic scales.
http://www.unusual-perspectives.net/goldilocks.html

By: eldras

eldras — Thu, 30 May 2013 11:40:28 +0000

This is really helpful thanks.

“Anything that can be said, can be said clearly” Wiggensteion Tractatus. Proposition 4.116

By: Editor

Editor — Thu, 30 May 2013 11:36:47 +0000

Really sorry to hear. I’m in touch with him.

By: Jack Richardson

Jack Richardson — Thu, 30 May 2013 10:34:43 +0000

Ray can correct me if I’m wrong, but I believe his vision coincides with yours in the sense that he envisions the eventual migration of our minds into an inorganic environment that supports an indefinite existence.

By: Bri

Bri — Thu, 30 May 2013 02:03:41 +0000

Mischio is really cool. I don’t quite understand how eleven dimensions can be utilized by us as a computer.

By: melajara

melajara — Wed, 29 May 2013 23:33:04 +0000

I’m very sorry to read your last paragraph. Despite your last sentence, I would urge you to keep fighting.

With all the lab news we keep reading day after day on this website on encouraging results to blast cancer tumors in imaginative ways, I would advise you to look for volunteering in the kind of treatment most fit for your particular form of cancer. Maybe Ray or our benevolent editor could help with links here.

I will download your book now, thank you for sharing

By: coolball

coolball — Wed, 29 May 2013 22:01:30 +0000

I think 3d computing’s ability to continue the doublings will depend on both ease of manufacturing ever more components without price escalating(probably will require more advanced nanotech manufacturing technologies), and the ability to keep energy and heat in check maybe requiring reversible computing

By: Vin

Vin — Wed, 29 May 2013 21:36:16 +0000

Cutting edge is a two-edged sword: can still be dangerous and experimental. Long term ramifications can only be estimated to some degree? Maybe many rich people shall be dying and suffering before some common ideal across humanity is reached.

By: Vin

Vin — Wed, 29 May 2013 21:06:32 +0000

Maybe Hugo de Garis’ thesis. Cyborg (necessarily weighed down by evolutionary baggage to some degree) Verses Artillect (not, to any or negligible degree)? Depending on say (1) Artillect survival is threatened and they have a survival motive.above xenocide (2) There is a critical competition for resource. (3) Morality or empathy is exclusively inversely proportional to intelligence.

By: Peter Kinnon

Peter Kinnon — Wed, 29 May 2013 20:44:07 +0000

It is so sad that Ray Kurzweil and his cohorts should have such a comprehensive grasp of the exponentiality of technological development yet, trapped by our inherent anthropocentricity, remain completely blind to the essential nature of the process.

Viewed objectively, using understandings acquired across a wide section of the scientific spectrum, it becomes very clear that this process is merely a phase of the more fundamental “life” process and that it’s future direction lies not in enhancement of our particular biological species but rather in the establishment of the completely new inorganic phase of which our present Internet is a progenitor.

In recent years I have advanced this theme in my writings and while this realization is gaining traction it has yet to make a substantial impact on the main transhumanist community, who desperately cling to the time-honored notion that we little bipeds are somehow central to the functioning of this universe.

The basis for such thinking is expanded upon very informally in “The Goldilocks Effect: What Has Serendipity Ever Done For Us?” , a free download in e-book formats from the “Unusual Perspectives” website.

The more formal work on which I started “The Intricacy Generator: Pushing Chemistry Uphill”, may, owing to a recent diagnosis of advanced stage cancer, never see the light of day. So it may be that my previous writings, with all their inadequacies, will have to suffice. I have tried my best.