4 ms·

We are ridiculously far from physical limits in our current artificial computers (both theoretical [1], and practical [2]). For more technical details see Jim K

We are ridiculously far from physical limits in our current artificial computers (both theoretical [1], and practical [2]). For more technical details see Jim Keller: [3] [4] [5]. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Limits_of_computation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Limits_of_computation [2] The ~12 watts computer inside each living human adult skull (and perhaps each eukaryote cell [6]) is still the state-of-the-art, for quite some time. [3] 2021, Jim Keller: The Secret to Moore's Law, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x17jIKQf9hE https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x17jIKQf9hE [4] 2019, Jim Keller: Moore’s Law is Not Dead, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oIG9ztQw2Gc https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oIG9ztQw2Gc [5] 2023, Change w/ Jim Keller, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gzgyksS5pX8 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gzgyksS5pX8 [6] Our computers aren't yet able of polycomputation, where the computation topology, data, and functions depend on the observer, instead of computation in a passive implementation, once done forever set in s̶t̶o̶n̶e̶ silicon, 2023, Michael Levin, Agency, Attractors, & Observer-Dependent Computation in Biology & Beyond, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=whZRH7IGAq0 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=whZRH7IGAq0

cubefox 3y ago
Physical limits don't matter much when economic limits (transistor cost) are reached much earlier. What matters is not transistors per chip area (Moore's law) but FLOP/s per chip cost. Also FLOP per chip power draw.
- ly3xqhl8g9 3y ago
  Economic limits are imaginary, secondhand effects of the ideological goggles one's society decides to wear at a certain time for arbitrary reasons. USA during the Manhattan Project knew of no economic limits, i.e. they could arbitrarily push them according to the greater goal; China today, for instance, knows no economic limits. But yes, today, in the "Western" world a speech such as "we choose to get 160 zetaflops (10^21) [1] under your desk in 10 years because it is hard" [2] would be unimaginable, also because you can count on the fingers of an amputated arm how many politicians know what a FLOP is. [1] https://geohot.github.io/blog/jekyll/update/2023/04/26/a-person-of-compute.html https://geohot.github.io/blog/jekyll/update/2023/04/26/a-per... [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/We_choose_to_go_to_the_Moon https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/We_choose_to_go_to_the_Moon
  - cubefox 3y ago
    There is no use in making chips that are not cost effective.
    - ly3xqhl8g9 3y ago
      There is no use in synthesizing (C6H6O·CH2O)n [1] (or LK-99, to be actual, real or not) that is not cost effective. It's precisely this penny pusher rhetoric which in the end will make China win, deservedly so. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bakelite https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bakelite
      - Qwertious 3y ago
        "Penny pusher rhetoric" is an interesting name for capitalism. Because, for better or worse, that is what's being described. You're not wrong though.
        ly3xqhl8g9 3y ago
        Interestingly enough, penny pushing also destroys capitalism, see The Man Who Broke Capitalism: How Jack Welch Gutted the Heartland and Crushed the Soul of Corporate America―and How to Undo His Legacy [1]. [1] https://www.simonandschuster.com/books/The-Man-Who-Broke-Capitalism/David-Gelles/9781982176426 https://www.simonandschuster.com/books/The-Man-Who-Broke-Cap...

cubefox 3y ago

Physical limits don't matter much when economic limits (transistor cost) are reached much earlier. What matters is not transistors per chip area (Moore's law) but FLOP/s per chip cost. Also FLOP per chip power draw.

ly3xqhl8g9 3y ago
Economic limits are imaginary, secondhand effects of the ideological goggles one's society decides to wear at a certain time for arbitrary reasons. USA during the Manhattan Project knew of no economic limits, i.e. they could arbitrarily push them according to the greater goal; China today, for instance, knows no economic limits. But yes, today, in the "Western" world a speech such as "we choose to get 160 zetaflops (10^21) [1] under your desk in 10 years because it is hard" [2] would be unimaginable, also because you can count on the fingers of an amputated arm how many politicians know what a FLOP is. [1] https://geohot.github.io/blog/jekyll/update/2023/04/26/a-person-of-compute.html https://geohot.github.io/blog/jekyll/update/2023/04/26/a-per... [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/We_choose_to_go_to_the_Moon https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/We_choose_to_go_to_the_Moon
- cubefox 3y ago
  There is no use in making chips that are not cost effective.
  - ly3xqhl8g9 3y ago
    There is no use in synthesizing (C6H6O·CH2O)n [1] (or LK-99, to be actual, real or not) that is not cost effective. It's precisely this penny pusher rhetoric which in the end will make China win, deservedly so. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bakelite https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bakelite
    - Qwertious 3y ago
      "Penny pusher rhetoric" is an interesting name for capitalism. Because, for better or worse, that is what's being described. You're not wrong though.
      - ly3xqhl8g9 3y ago
        Interestingly enough, penny pushing also destroys capitalism, see The Man Who Broke Capitalism: How Jack Welch Gutted the Heartland and Crushed the Soul of Corporate America―and How to Undo His Legacy [1]. [1] https://www.simonandschuster.com/books/The-Man-Who-Broke-Capitalism/David-Gelles/9781982176426 https://www.simonandschuster.com/books/The-Man-Who-Broke-Cap...