4 ms·
The end of Moore's Law doesn't necessarily have to imply a deceleration in technological evolution, as Ray Kurzweil and others have pointed out. In their view,
by juanmirocks 9y ago
The end of Moore's Law doesn't necessarily have to imply a deceleration in technological evolution, as Ray Kurzweil and others have pointed out. In their view, Moore's Law is just one single phase in the "law of accelerating returns".
- ChrisSD 9y agoWhich is what this article also argues. As we can no longer rely on Moore's exponential increases we will start looking elsewhere to evolve technology. A new "golden age" as he calls it. Maybe that'll mean looking beyond von neumann for general purpose architecture. Maybe it'll mean designing a lot more specialised architectures, similar to how the GPU is specialised for graphics processing (and useful for some other tasks) or how most mobile devices come with specialised processors. Maybe it'll mean something completely different. The future of computing is exciting again.
- hyperpallium 9y agoLike peak oil. But there might be a (seemingly) interminable lull. Meanwhile, I like the idea of physically massive GPUs if they can't get smaller (also doing ML, CFD etc)
- bluddy 9y agoThat makes little sense. We've been riding this particular technology called transistors we've stumbled on for the past 60 or so years. Now the technology is mature, and to make serious progress, we have to get lucky again and stumble on another technology. It doesn't just happen on its own.