4 ms·

Moores law lives on in Kurzweils law (in spirit)

by singularity2001 4y ago

riceart 4y ago
No it doesn’t - take that singularity bullshit elsewhere. Gordon Moore never aligned himself with that pseudoscientific nonsense https://cs.stanford.edu/people/eroberts/cs181/projects/2010-11/TechnologicalSingularity/pageview2efb.html?file=againstfeasibility.html https://cs.stanford.edu/people/eroberts/cs181/projects/2010-...
- maushu 4y ago
  I don't understand what you linked. Don't they believe in technological singularity? I would think a intelligence capable of self modification could use the scientific method to increase it's performance (even if it means scaling in size like a matrioshka brain).
  - riceart 4y ago
    > Don't they believe in technological singularity? “ In fact, in a 2005 interview, Moore personally stated that his prediction of exponential growth would not hold indefinitely, simply due to "the nature of exponentials." No.
- dang 4y ago
  Can you please make your substantive points without name-calling? It's not hard, and we're trying for something a bit different from internet default here. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
  - theodric 4y ago
    Was there an edit? I don't see any name-calling in GP.
    - dang 4y ago
      "That singularity bullshit" and "that pseudoscientific nonsense" count as name-calling in the sense that https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html uses the term: "When disagreeing, please reply to the argument instead of calling names. 'That is idiotic; 1 + 1 is 2, not 3' can be shortened to '1 + 1 is 2, not 3." (a bit more explanation if anyone cares: aggressive pejoratives tend to poison curious conversation and are easy to cut, so this isn't a hard one. I think mostly people write like that online because it's how many of us would talk in person with people we're friendly with—and there it's totally normal, because there's already a 'contract' that takes care of understanding each other's good intention. That's absent online, so many commenters are on a hair trigger with this kind of thing and will react in ways that take the conversation to less interesting, more conflictual places.)
- tim333 4y ago
  Though the basic point that computers keep increasing in processing power still seems to hold, even if it's not just by having more transistors per area.

Moores law lives on in Kurzweils law (in spirit)

No it doesn’t - take that singularity bullshit elsewhere. Gordon Moore never aligned himself with that pseudoscientific nonsense https://cs.stanford.edu/people/eroberts/cs181/projects/2010-11/TechnologicalSingularity/pageview2efb.html?file=againstfeasibility.html https://cs.stanford.edu/people/eroberts/cs181/projects/2010-...

maushu 4y ago
I don't understand what you linked. Don't they believe in technological singularity? I would think a intelligence capable of self modification could use the scientific method to increase it's performance (even if it means scaling in size like a matrioshka brain).
- riceart 4y ago
  > Don't they believe in technological singularity? “ In fact, in a 2005 interview, Moore personally stated that his prediction of exponential growth would not hold indefinitely, simply due to "the nature of exponentials." No.
dang 4y ago
Can you please make your substantive points without name-calling? It's not hard, and we're trying for something a bit different from internet default here. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
- theodric 4y ago
  Was there an edit? I don't see any name-calling in GP.
  - dang 4y ago
    "That singularity bullshit" and "that pseudoscientific nonsense" count as name-calling in the sense that https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html uses the term: "When disagreeing, please reply to the argument instead of calling names. 'That is idiotic; 1 + 1 is 2, not 3' can be shortened to '1 + 1 is 2, not 3." (a bit more explanation if anyone cares: aggressive pejoratives tend to poison curious conversation and are easy to cut, so this isn't a hard one. I think mostly people write like that online because it's how many of us would talk in person with people we're friendly with—and there it's totally normal, because there's already a 'contract' that takes care of understanding each other's good intention. That's absent online, so many commenters are on a hair trigger with this kind of thing and will react in ways that take the conversation to less interesting, more conflictual places.)
tim333 4y ago
Though the basic point that computers keep increasing in processing power still seems to hold, even if it's not just by having more transistors per area.