82,903
edits
The Singularity is Near: Difference between revisions
no edit summary
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary Tags: Mobile edit Mobile web edit |
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary Tags: Mobile edit Mobile web edit |
||
| Line 32: | Line 32: | ||
And that, I think, is the nub of it. I’m somewhat uneasy pooh-poohing a theory put together with such elan (and to be sure, buried in Kurzweil’s breathless prose is plenty of learning about technology which, if even half-way right, is fascinating), but that seems to be it. I am fortified by the nearby predictions made just four years ago, seeming not to have come anything like true just yet: | And that, I think, is the nub of it. I’m somewhat uneasy pooh-poohing a theory put together with such elan (and to be sure, buried in Kurzweil’s breathless prose is plenty of learning about technology which, if even half-way right, is fascinating), but that seems to be it. I am fortified by the nearby predictions made just four years ago, seeming not to have come anything like true just yet: | ||
“By the end of this decade [i.e., by | “By the end of this decade [i.e., by 2011]<ref>I am grateful to my friend Mr. Finney for reminding of the correct chronological conventions.</ref> computers will disappear as distinct physical objects, with displays built in our eyeglasses and electronics woven into our clothing” | ||
=== | ===Whither cloud computing?=== | ||
On the other hand I could find scant reference to “cloud computing” or equivalent phenomena like the [[Berkeley Open Infrastructure for Network Computing]] project which spawned schemes like SETI@home in Kurzweil’s book<ref>Coda:Even that seems to have gone off the boil in the last decade. Which proves, rather than undermines, the point.</ref>. Now here is a rapidly evolving technological phenotype, for sure: hooking up thousands of serially processing computers into a massive parallel network, giving processing power way beyond any technology currently envisioned. It may be that this adaptation means we simply don’t need to incur the mental challenge of molecular transistors and so on, since there must, at some point, be an absolute limit to miniaturisation, as we approach it the marginal utility of developing the necessary technology will swan dive just as the marginal cost ascends to the heavens; whereas the parallel network involves none of those limitations. You can always hook up yet another computer, and everyone will increase performance. | On the other hand I could find scant reference to “cloud computing” or equivalent phenomena like the [[Berkeley Open Infrastructure for Network Computing]] project which spawned schemes like SETI@home in Kurzweil’s book<ref>Coda:Even that seems to have gone off the boil in the last decade. Which proves, rather than undermines, the point.</ref>. Now here is a rapidly evolving technological phenotype, for sure: hooking up thousands of serially processing computers into a massive parallel network, giving processing power way beyond any technology currently envisioned. It may be that this adaptation means we simply don’t need to incur the mental challenge of molecular transistors and so on, since there must, at some point, be an absolute limit to miniaturisation, as we approach it the marginal utility of developing the necessary technology will swan dive just as the marginal cost ascends to the heavens; whereas the parallel network involves none of those limitations. You can always hook up yet another computer, and everyone will increase performance. | ||
===Evolution explains what’s happened. It doesn’t predict what happens next=== | ===Evolution explains what’s happened. It doesn’t predict what happens next=== | ||
I suppose it’s easy to be smug as I type on my decidedly physical computer, showing no signs of being superseded with VR Goggles just yet and we’re | I suppose it’s easy to be smug as I type on my decidedly physical computer, showing no signs of being superseded with VR Goggles just yet and we’re not far from the new decade<ref>I wrote this in 2009; as I edit it ten years later, still on a PC (admittedly a smaller, more powerful one), we’re no closer, but who would have guessed at the explosion of smart phones?</ref>, but the point is that the evolutionary process is notoriously bad at making predictions (until, that is, the results are in!), being as [[path-dependent]] as it is. | ||
You can’t predict for developments that haven’t yet happened. Kurzweil glosses over this shortfall at his theory’s cost. | You can’t predict for developments that haven’t yet happened. Kurzweil glosses over this shortfall at his theory’s cost. | ||