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 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.
Fortunately, that's already been done for us. And the fact is, it has been flat for over a decade now.
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.
They have been taking away jobs its just recently AI has become good enough to really start to make a impact and since the numbers are bigger when they double they are advancing faster and faster so the changes we will see in the next 6 years will be more then the past 20.
They have been taking away jobs its just recently AI has become good enough to really start to make a impact and since the numbers are bigger when they double they are advancing faster and faster so the changes we will see in the next 6 years will be more then the past 20.
It doesn't matter how many times you repeat that line, you have not given a convincing argument for that.
I have explained very clearly why it is that the exponential argument fails without further qualification.
I just looked around at the latest Intel processors. They're around 3-5 GHz, just like in 2003. No change at all in 11 years ...
This article came out in 2005 when the smart phone was just coming out and today we have wearable tech right on schedule. So we have gone through a paradigm and starting the next so instead of slowing down things are speeding up why we will merge with the technology in the 2020's.
That is the definition of the singularity. No one can really predict what will happen after.
No, the singularity is a (hypothesized) time when technological change happens exposively fast.
Unpredictable is not the same thing. It could be unpredictable simply because we don't know what the next specific technology will be, but that would not be a singularity, just unpredictable.
This article came out in 2005 when the smart phone was just coming out and today we have wearable tech right on schedule. So we have gone through a paradigm and starting the next so instead of slowing down things are speeding up why we will merge with the technology in the 2020's.
Right, you cherry pick the predictions Kurzweil got right and ignore the fact that he also predicted CPU speed would increase exponentially when it has been flat and proved him wrong.
No, the singularity is a (hypothesized) time when technological change happens exposively fast.
Unpredictable is not the same thing. It could be unpredictable simply because we don't know what the next specific technology will be, but that would not be a singularity, just unpredictable.
If you listen to Ray Kurzweil the reason the term singularity is used is because at that point we will be advancing so fast that its impossible to predict after. Why they took the term as you can not see past a singularity.
Right, you cherry pick the predictions Kurzweil got right and ignore the fact that he also predicted CPU speed would increase exponentially when it has been flat and proved him wrong.
Ray Kurzweil has proven that software is not stuck in the mud.
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.
