4 ms·
There are indeed hard limits to chemical rocketry, and we mostly hit them after a decade or two of work by people with pencils and slide rules. Computers might
by mechagodzilla 4y ago
There are indeed hard limits to chemical rocketry, and we mostly hit them after a decade or two of work by people with pencils and slide rules.
Computers might be a better analogy. We started designing computers without the aid of other computers. We made very rapid progress on architecture and semiconductors. We’re now completely dependent on computers to help us design future ones, and despite all our efforts and hundreds of billions of dollars in investments, our rate of progress has slowed to a crawl and we seem to rapidly be approaching the end game. Dennard scaling has been done for 15 years. We can make wires that are smaller but just proportionally worse. We can use more silicon area, but then latency and power consumption get proportionally worse. A super clever hyper optimizing AI might push a couple things forward a little bit (or more likely wind up at the exact same destination slightly earlier than we other wise might have), but there’s no compelling reason to think it gets to design computers that face different constraints.
- adamsmith143 4y agoThis sounds like a child explaining to other children that Adults can't be that much smarter and probably won't be able to make any progress on putting the square peg into the right hole. The child can't comprehend the things Adults can think about.
- simiones 4y agoWe have a pretty good understanding of physics in this area, and one that has stood many significant tests. While it's of course always possible that we're missing something, it's entirely likely right now that there is no new physics to be discovered at the scale of microprocessors. Given that, we have a pretty good idea of how much more could be done in principle to improve processors (if we assumed we could overcome all engineering challenges), and it's not that much more.