Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I was talking with some colleagues of mine a few years ago - one of them had a lot of problems with seasonal allergies. He said his eyes were torturing him.
So I remarked that it would be so much easier if he could just replace his eyes with CCD cameras.
Another colleague who has a lot of experience in bio-physics told us that connecting a nerve to a computer wire, etc. is difficult because of the immune response and other responses, and cells in a laboratory often atrophy when in contact with some solid materials.
Can we treat itchy eyes in 2030 by just trading them for CCD cameras? Maybe. But the treatment will be costly and time-consuming, as the bio-tech needed will be the main factor.
Or take an anti allergy treatment...
Bionic eyes was approved for the European market in 2011
In 2009 the Velodyne LIDAR cost 75.000$ and weights a massive 30 pounds.
Today in 2014 it is now almost ten times less expensive (7.999$) and weights 600 grams (about 50 times less).
In 2009 the Velodyne LIDAR cost 75.000$ and weights a massive 30 pounds.
Today in 2014 it is now almost ten times less expensive (7.999$) and weights 600 grams (about 50 times less).
Which is an ill-defined notion because of the notion of "advancing exponentially" depending on your parameter choice.
Its actually a easy concept. You take the current LIDAR and build it twice as fast then you take the next model and do the same etc. Why it has advanced so much is such a short time.
Its actually a easy concept. You take the current LIDAR and build it twice as fast then you take the next model and do the same etc. Why it has advanced so much is such a short time.
Build twice as fast is not necessarily the same as half the price or twice the resolution.
All those measures may be improving simultaneously, but you have to show, using data, each improvement separately.
You cannot extrapolate from one quantity to another.
If resolution is improving exponentially, that only allows you to extrapolate future resolution, not future price or manufacturing time.
Similarly, if manufacturing time is decreasing exponentially, that only allows you to extrapolate future manufacturing time, not resolution.
Each measure of performance must be considered on its own merit.
This is not, of course, to claim that any specific thing is not improving. Just that you have to be clear what you mean if you're trying to quantify it.
Today they are expensive and works not good
Then they will become cheap and work well
Then it will be close to free and work perfectly...
I doubt it. Even if the bionic eye itself becomes dirt-cheap, a medical procedure is required to install it, and a long period of neurological adaptation/training.
I expect them to be available as a widely used treatment for blindness by 2030, don't get me wrong here.
However, I don't expect people with normal vision to be "enhancing" themselves in that way at that point in time. The slow transformation of the general population into "cyborgs" will not occur until it makes sense to do so, in other words, an enhancement must be worth its cost AND its medical risk.
Let's suppose that, in 2030, you'll have "cheap" bionic eyes ($3,000 including medical procedure, hospital stay, etc.), which will be for the blind. They won't be as good as natural vision. The higher-resolution bionic eyes will need larger pupils and an extremely dense CCD array, not to mention some ability to put in more information than the brain currently can take. But with them, the vision will be better than the natural vision, unlike for the "cheap" bionic eyes.
Of course you can posit an enhancement of the brain as well to process that information, but now we're talking expensive neurosurgery at least. Even if the electronics are dirt cheap, this procedure will be very expensive - $20k+.
And that is to allow for enhanced cyborg vision alone. What about other functions of the body, etc.?
And also, medical procedures don't come without risk. The surgery carries all sorts of complication risks.
The risk and cost for a single cybernetic enhancement of some sort (including the brain processing enhancement) may be manageable by 2030. However, the cumulative risk and cost of multiple enhancements will be much higher. If you wanted enhanced vision, hearing, balance, muscles, etc. the cost will add up. Eventually you're talking $100k+ in cost and ethically unacceptable risk of medical complications.
So I do not expect ordinary people to be employing multiple cybernetic enhancements or implants, although I certainly think they will be widely available to the disabled by 2030, at least the 'simpler' types.
Which is an ill-defined notion because of the notion of "advancing exponentially" depending on your parameter choice.
Well, usually it all boils down, more or less, to price but sure, sometimes you need to specify it.
Say Moore's law, you can think of it, not as doubling the transistors but halvening the price (of raw output). Not perfect maybe but it works for any tech where we need "more of it", ie cheaper stuff.
Also on a side note, the Velodyne LIDAR is like the best of the best, there will probably be 'cheaper ones'. I read that Audi says that you only need 4 lasers for example, the Velodyne dave 64 lasers so price can probably be lowered further (for self driving cars).
I doubt it. Even if the bionic eye itself becomes dirt-cheap, a medical procedure is required to install it, and a long period of neurological adaptation/training.
I expect them to be available as a widely used treatment for blindness by 2030, don't get me wrong here.
However, I don't expect people with normal vision to be "enhancing" themselves in that way at that point in time. The slow transformation of the general population into "cyborgs" will not occur until it makes sense to do so, in other words, an enhancement must be worth its cost AND its medical risk.
Let's suppose that, in 2030, you'll have "cheap" bionic eyes ($3,000 including medical procedure, hospital stay, etc.), which will be for the blind. They won't be as good as natural vision. The higher-resolution bionic eyes will need larger pupils and an extremely dense CCD array, not to mention some ability to put in more information than the brain currently can take. But with them, the vision will be better than the natural vision, unlike for the "cheap" bionic eyes.
Of course you can posit an enhancement of the brain as well to process that information, but now we're talking expensive neurosurgery at least. Even if the electronics are dirt cheap, this procedure will be very expensive - $20k+.
And that is to allow for enhanced cyborg vision alone. What about other functions of the body, etc.?
And also, medical procedures don't come without risk. The surgery carries all sorts of complication risks.
The risk and cost for a single cybernetic enhancement of some sort (including the brain processing enhancement) may be manageable by 2030. However, the cumulative risk and cost of multiple enhancements will be much higher. If you wanted enhanced vision, hearing, balance, muscles, etc. the cost will add up. Eventually you're talking $100k+ in cost and ethically unacceptable risk of medical complications.
So I do not expect ordinary people to be employing multiple cybernetic enhancements or implants, although I certainly think they will be widely available to the disabled by 2030, at least the 'simpler' types.
Well you might be right of course and it is a good prediction using today's tech I think.
Now if we take one of Ray Kurzweils predictions:
2030s: Nanomachines could be directly inserted into the brain and could interact with brain cells to totally control incoming and outgoing signals.
If this comes true (I bet it will, I just won't bet on the exact year), this would actually remove all the medical work to make someone see through a camera.
Build twice as fast is not necessarily the same as half the price or twice the resolution.
All those measures may be improving simultaneously, but you have to show, using data, each improvement separately.
You cannot extrapolate from one quantity to another.
If resolution is improving exponentially, that only allows you to extrapolate future resolution, not future price or manufacturing time.
Similarly, if manufacturing time is decreasing exponentially, that only allows you to extrapolate future manufacturing time, not resolution.
Each measure of performance must be considered on its own merit.
This is not, of course, to claim that any specific thing is not improving. Just that you have to be clear what you mean if you're trying to quantify it.
That is what has happened. LIDAR has come down in price is smaller and better all in just a few years. Do you think it will suddenly stop now? I do not and the impact will be seen by 2020.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
