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.
It is a bit too optimistic I think (if you combine an "Ãœber" and self driving cars, you could cut out 9 out of 10 cars) but what ever number it might be, less cars needed means the cars in use could be more expensive (to create / tend to) for the same user price or just cheaper for the consumer of course.
I don't understand what you are looking for, the data is everywhere, computer power price is crumbling since 1890 and CPU power goes up! Still does! Just compare a PC from 2005 with one from today...
And if you can't imagine a neo cortex (6 layers of around 90.000.000.000 neurons interconnected) dreaming of parallel computers to run then I can't do anything for you (hint: it's ridiculously easy to treat in parallel).
So please, stop dragging in that "speed stopped @ 2005" because it doesn't matter and you have the proof just by comparing 2014 computers vs 2005 computers.
You are pre-supposing that a strong AI with far greater intelligence than a human being can be made and modelled off the same principles as a human brain.
So we have the end of the dr coming and now the end of the nurse.
Assuming nothing goes wrong of course.
Interestingly enough, machines have been answering phones and directing people around for 20 years already, and they have not rendered humans obsolete. When I call an insurance company or cell phone company, etc., some part of the time I still need to talk to a human. So I spend the 5 minutes or whatever trying to get past the machine, which won't meet my needs, and then talk to a real person.
How do you know the virtual nurse thing won't be the same way? Perhaps they will fill some of the need that human nurses currently do, but it doesn't mean we won't need human nurses, just as the automated systems don't mean you never need to talk to a real person.
Kurzweil is basing his predictions on exponential trends, as we all know, so it seems most predictable to have the tech in the 2030s.
Today there is DNA origami which can deliver drugs to specific places, can compute (they claim C64 like power ) and is under 1um (the size that can be squeezed into a living cell without wrecking havoc).
They can grow them by the billion too BTW so if they can make these bots to go to neurons (the right place) and get past the blood/brain barrier, they "just" have to get around the communication problem, sending data to billions of nanobots.
If I were to predict a day when nanobots could interfere with neurons (in animals) I'd say in a couple of years if not earlier. When will it be mainstream? 15 years of development for humans and FDA approvals + some years and we are in the 2030s
I have already explained why you can't just point to one thing that is exponential and then assume everything else follows. It doesn't work that way, simply put.
No, I don't think it will stop. It's just too far out to forecast. I can only shrug my shoulders and say I have no clue what will or won't happen.
And neither do you, for that matter...
That is the definition of the singularity. No one can really predict what will happen after.
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.
) and is under 1um (the size that can be squeezed into a living cell without wrecking havoc).
