2 ms·
> our machine is like a gazillion times more powerful than the quote Really? Around 2000, storage capacity of 10^9 sounds pretty reasonable. Given that this is
by nhaehnle 12y ago
> our machine is like a gazillion times more powerful than the quote
Really? Around 2000, storage capacity of 10^9 sounds pretty reasonable. Given that this is a prediction that's trying to hit an exponential development on a half-century time scale, I find it pretty impressive.
- teraflop 12y agoYeah, I fairly-arbitrarily picked an advertisement from the January 2000 issue of PC Magazine, and it looks like $750 would buy you a machine with 10^9 bits of RAM and 10^11 bits of hard disk space, so depending on how you define "storage capacity" it's uncannily accurate. https://books.google.com/books?id=UEgKC-lu4_IC&lpg=PA32&dq=pc%20mag%202000&pg=PA245#v=onepage&q&f=false https://books.google.com/books?id=UEgKC-lu4_IC&lpg=PA32&dq=p...
- NhanH 12y agoI wasn't thinking of personal computer when I wrote the comment. I was thinking about more of a state-of-the-art super computer type (in 2000 that would have been ASCI RED), which would have probably be the same magnitude in term of physical size with "computer" in Turing time! Prediction should be judged based on "the best it could be". Otherwise, it seems like an arbitrary pick (why personal computer and not tablet?), doesn't it? Anyway, since it's an exponential development, the line between "supercomputer" to "big server" to "personal computer" is only a few years off. So yes, it was impressive. But that wasn't the point I was trying to make. I meant that even with access to computing power a gazillion more powerful than mentioning in the quote (again, not personal computer), we still couldn't pass the Turing test. The prediction was off on both the necessary computing resources, as well as the difficulty of the test itself.