10-28-2019, 10:16 PM
(This post was last modified: 10-28-2019, 10:17 PM by Warren Dew.)
While I agree with the "fast enough computer" theory, I don't necessarily agree with the idea that we'll get computers fast enough and efficient enough.
Here's the issue: for decades, Moore's law was driven by reduction in processor size. Unfortunately, within the past decade, that reduction reached a physical limit as circuits on the chips shrank to the point that inductance effects between adjacent "wires" became limiting.
At this point, Moore's law is being driven by parallelism instead of more powerful processors: having larger numbers of the same old processors running in parallel. That can still result in ever more powerful computers - but they will also be ever larger and consume ever more energy. That limits their usefulness in certain applications, in particular mobile applications.
In 2050, the best artists may well be computers which fill buildings. We may still be traveling around town in Uber and Lyft vehicles driven by human beings, however.
Here's the issue: for decades, Moore's law was driven by reduction in processor size. Unfortunately, within the past decade, that reduction reached a physical limit as circuits on the chips shrank to the point that inductance effects between adjacent "wires" became limiting.
At this point, Moore's law is being driven by parallelism instead of more powerful processors: having larger numbers of the same old processors running in parallel. That can still result in ever more powerful computers - but they will also be ever larger and consume ever more energy. That limits their usefulness in certain applications, in particular mobile applications.
In 2050, the best artists may well be computers which fill buildings. We may still be traveling around town in Uber and Lyft vehicles driven by human beings, however.
