2 ms·

"However, that won't last, and energy-wise, life is far more energy-efficient than machines for most tasks" I really have to question this. Humans are notoriou

• vanderZwan 12y ago
  Even if you calculated as embodied energy instead of just looking at the energy spent directly on a task? Because a large part of the "inefficiency" of living creatures is physical maintenance of the body. If that is included for machines as well, I'm not so sure if they're better off. For now, of course - as soon as we realise energy is a real constraint, we'll surely start optimising for it. The third link I posted references Geoffrey West who has an interesting high-level physics approach to this issue, but it doesn't really do justice to his points. But I figured posting this 40 minute one, which is much more comprehensive, would be a bit much to ask: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DFFVSvAr7Wc https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DFFVSvAr7Wc (also has a lot more phycisist's arrogance in the form of cursing, which I find entertaining myself) Actually, given that city energy spending also grows sublinearly, robot and AI networks probably would as well. So that argument likely won't hold against it.