Lifeboat foundation: Proof that Moore’s Law is Accelerating and Bringing The Singularity With It

Introduction

Moore’s Law says that the number of transistors per square inch will double approximately every 18 months. This article will show how many technologies are providing us with a new Virtual Moore’s Law that proves computer performance will at least double every 18 months for the foreseeable future thanks to many new technological developments.

Going Vertical
In the first of my “proof” articles two years ago, I described how it has become harder to miniaturize transistors, causing computing to go vertical instead. 2 years ago, Samsung was mass producing 24-layer 3D NAND chips and had announced 32-layer chips. As I write this, Samsung is mass producing 48-layer 3D NAND chips with 64-layer chips rumored to appear within a month or so. Even more importantly, it is expected that by the end of 2017, the majority of NAND chips produced by all companies will be 3D. Currently Samsung and its competitors are working 24/7 to transform their 2D factories to 3D factories causing a dramatic change in how NAND flash chips are created.

Here’s the full article:

http://lifeboat.com/blog/2016/12/proof-that-moores-law-is-accelerating-and-bringing-the-singularity-with-it

Really like this quote:

Nvidia’s CEO Jen-Hsun Huang said, “A.I. is going to increase in capability faster than Moore’s Law. I believe it’s a kind of a hyper Moore’s Law phenomenon because it has the benefit of continuous learning. It has the benefit of large-scale networked continuous learning. Today, we roll out a new software package, fix bugs, update it once a year. That rhythm is going to change. Software will learn from experience much more quickly. Once one smart piece of software on one device learns something, then you can over-the-air (OTA) it across the board. All of a sudden, everything gets smarter.”

3 Likes

As long as we are merging / continuing to make interfaces to control and use AI in our own brains and not become obsolete ourselves, I’m fine with all the advances :slight_smile:

We are the ones who are creating it after all so I feel we damn well better be the ones benefiting from it / remaining in control of the world!

1 Like

While fangirling over this crazy progress, we tend to forget the other side of the increasing complexity. Things get more and more coupled, but interconnectedness is a bitch: you can’t tell which small event will trigger widespread collapse. Basically, it’s all cute and efficient until something small screws up everything.

While I’m a huge fan of AI and gadgets and shiz, I also think it’s about time to move to rural Thailand, where people still grow their own rice and veggies.

Naw Tim we know how it happens say already have one dumbest politician on the planet, say you already have a Paul Ryan or a Scott Walker and then you get another extreme ass like that Brit politician that said essentially that Russia and by implication Russians are inferior while trying to resurect WWII Nazi sentiments toward Russia- two ultra dimwits is all it takes ti have fission everywhere and the odds go up from there as more dimwitts rise to prominence.

Well, that’s one option. My point was that we don’t need extreme steps to lead to extreme events. A tiny glitch, cascaded, may cause a collapse in a system where everything became tightly coupled due to optimization.

1 Like

I agree over optimization leads to serious breakage, slack is necessary.

Tainter’s argument is that societies naturally progress toward complexity as they implement layers upon layers of solutions to squeeze out more and more of the available resources to sustain a larger and larger population. However, these layers deliver more and more diminishing returns as the society approaches the theoretical maximum of the best available energy source. (Which also means when new energy sources are discovered, the collapse from this source is pushed back by some time.)

Eliminating “slack” is therefore not a conscious decision, just the other side of optimizing resource utilization. An unfortunate side-effect is that everything becomes so coupled that anything can trigger an arbitrarily far-reaching chain of events. Basically, societies are heading toward collapse, and there’s not much to do about it. (By the way, by “collapse” Tainter means not just chaos and many lives lost, but primarily a loss of complexity: less specialization, a simplification of social structure.)

A notable exception Tainter brought in his talk that I found on YouTube was the Eastern Roman Empire, which deliberately and gradually downsized itself. Disclaimer: I’m not very strong in the history department, so I can’t ascertain if that is a correct description of what happened.

1 Like

I remember a presentation by I think Scott Paige where he describes management think as making stuff brittle and breaking it. Its a varient of Demming’s fit systems to people not people to systems. He used a plumbing analogy. It was historically a while before we thought to introduce simple terminated lengths of capped off pipes with a and air bubble in them to stop the shock of having incompressible water suddenly shut of at the spigot spinging through the piping system (think of squeesing a section of water baloon and the seeing the compensatory buldging but in metal pipe bodies) and the the ensuing caucaphony sounding like ball pin hammers hammering along the home piping system echoing everywhere and adding wear to the plumbing. Solution would be to add slack- the simple dampeners above. But typical optimization idiot management think would tighten up everthing and harden everything until the pipes burst every time the water was shut off. Even the word management is from the realm of pure idiocy- it has always entailed and literally meant trying to apply the principles of animal husbandry to human beings, fear oriented behavior orientation and intent in a pure karmic downward spiral- very zero sum.