[yt]7Pq-S557XQU[/yt]
If machines completely and utterly take over the economy, how are humans supposed to work for a living? We may come to a point where machines are so good at our jobs that nobody will be employable anymore, even the most professional and creative among us. Not even the jobs of doctors, lawyers and CEOs will be safe.
Do these machines of the future completely take care of us and manage our lives as we fear the state would manage them? Do we all enter a state of existential crisis because machines have robbed us of our sense of purpose? Do we embrace technology to such a degree that we transcend our humanity, allowing us to compete with advanced AI and robotics? Is that even possible?
Assuming there's no government monkeying with the economy going on, the only way that could happen is if robots were able to satisfy absolutely every desire that humans have. As long as there's even one person out there with needs and desires that the machines aren't meeting, there's a job for someone else who can fulfill them.
So at that point, why would we NEED to work?
https://www.bogosity.tv/forum/index.php?topic=2576.0
We already have a thread on this, which I already commented on.
But I'll add a question I thought of as I watched the first minute or so of the video (starting after the timestamp t=100 seconds)...a question they didn't seem too keen on answering as they were talking about, "This robot only costs about $0.001/hour" or whatever it was. And I'm thinking, "Okay, so that's the marginal cost. What's the set cost? Because no chance in hell that thing cost only a few pennies to design, test, build, program, debug, manufacture, etc."
One possible scenario is that we rent our brains out to this large automoton complex. Sort of like the Matrix without it's obviously impossible energy extraction, or for that matter enslavement of the human race. Specifically we rent our brains out to be used as extra memory or processing power. Even then our population would still decline but it wouldn't be due to war.
I was in a discussion with some ancom when he started up the whole "technology creates unemployment" nonsense and posed me the question what would happen when the robots take all the jobs.
I said "then...we'd have a perfect world where we didn't have to work. And the problem with that is what exactly?"
And then you have the Zeitgeist religion on the other side of the coin. Yes, they understand making work obsolete would be a good thing, but also think the way to do this is to establish a worldwide socialist commune.
Quote from: MrBogosity on September 02, 2014, 06:40:31 AM
Assuming there's no government monkeying with the economy going on, the only way that could happen is if robots were able to satisfy absolutely every desire that humans have. As long as there's even one person out there with needs and desires that the machines aren't meeting, there's a job for someone else who can fulfill them.
So at that point, why would we NEED to work?
What I am afraid of is that one day machines will be able to satisfy all the needs and desires of humans, meaning that their is no job that a machine can't do better or more cheaply. But you really don't even have to get to such an absolute point to see an effect. All you need are fewer human jobs available than you have humans to work. As more and more jobs get replaced, more people will be unemployed.
But you might ask, why bother working if machines do everything we need? We work because we need to exchange the value of our time so that we can buy the things we need to live, and if at all possible, have enough excess to live a good life and maybe even build our own little empire.
But if machines are doing all the work, and you don't own the machines, you are pretty much screwed by your own obsolescence. Without an economic demand, the monetary value of our lives will be less than zero, because keeping unproductive humans alive is a net loss, like a man-child that won't leave his parent's basement because he can't find work.
People talk as though this future will bring about a post-scarcity economy. But my worry is that it will bring us to a post-human economy.
Quote from: Professor_Fennec on October 02, 2014, 09:45:40 PM
What I am afraid of is that one day machines will be able to satisfy all the needs and desires of humans, meaning that their is no job that a machine can't do better or more cheaply. But you really don't even have to get to such an absolute point to see an effect. All you need are fewer human jobs available than you have humans to work. As more and more jobs get replaced, more people will be unemployed.
But you might ask, why bother working if machines do everything we need? We work because we need to exchange the value of our time so that we can buy the things we need to live, and if at all possible, have enough excess to live a good life and maybe even build our own little empire.
But if machines are doing all the work, and you don't own the machines, you are pretty much screwed by your own obsolescence. Without an economic demand, the monetary value of our lives will be less than zero, because keeping unproductive humans alive is a net loss, like a man-child that won't leave his parent's basement because he can't find work.
People talk as though this future will bring about a post-scarcity economy. But my worry is that it will bring us to a post-human economy.
This fails the most basic of economic principles: Desires are INFINITE, so there will ALWAYS be more work to do, and there is no such thing as "post-scarcity", there is only changes in what is scarce.
Quote from: evensgrey on October 02, 2014, 10:54:08 PM
This fails the most basic of economic principles: Desires are INFINITE, so there will ALWAYS be more work to do, and there is no such thing as "post-scarcity", there is only changes in what is scarce.
Your desires don't get fulfilled unless you have something of value to exchange for what you want. If you have nothing of value, you have nothing to trade with. If machines offer a better deal than what you can offer in every conceivable way, you are worse than worthless. So, the problem isn't a lack of abundance of resources, but a looming problem of access to resources. In other words, famine without government being the cause. Instead, the cause is our inability to evolve fast enough to compete with technology.
Quote from: Professor_Fennec on October 02, 2014, 09:45:40 PM
What I am afraid of is that one day machines will be able to satisfy all the needs and desires of humans, meaning that their is no job that a machine can't do better or more cheaply.
Why are you afraid of that? Wouldn't that be the best of all possible worlds? No one would have to work and we would all have our needs taken care of!
QuoteAll you need are fewer human jobs available than you have humans to work. As more and more jobs get replaced, more people will be unemployed.
Again, in a free market, the only way that could happen is if absolutely each and every need of those humans was taken care of by the machines.
QuoteWe work because we need to exchange the value of our time so that we can buy the things we need to live, and if at all possible, have enough excess to live a good life and maybe even build our own little empire.
Do we? Why not have the machines do that for us?
QuoteBut if machines are doing all the work, and you don't own the machines, you are pretty much screwed by your own obsolescence.
The one part of a computer or network that is NEVER obsolete is the user. That's why they EXIST!
Quote from: Professor_Fennec on October 02, 2014, 11:37:37 PM
Your desires don't get fulfilled unless you have something of value to exchange for what you want. If you have nothing of value, you have nothing to trade with. If machines offer a better deal than what you can offer in every conceivable way, you are worse than worthless. So, the problem isn't a lack of abundance of resources, but a looming problem of access to resources. In other words, famine without government being the cause. Instead, the cause is our inability to evolve fast enough to compete with technology.
This is starting to sound remarkably like those predictions of 20-hour work weeks, and it's wrong for the same reason.
Long before we could get into this state, we're going to be physically transformed by our technology, and the entire scenario you present will be mooted. This is why the doomsayers of The Club of Rome failed as well: You cannot predict beyond the singularity BY DEFINITION.
Quote from: evensgrey on October 03, 2014, 07:38:37 AM
This is starting to sound remarkably like those predictions of 20-hour work weeks, and it's wrong for the same reason.
Long before we could get into this state, we're going to be physically transformed by our technology, and the entire scenario you present will be mooted. This is why the doomsayers of The Club of Rome failed as well: You cannot predict beyond the singularity BY DEFINITION.
Which predictions of 20 hour work weeks are these? The only ones I'm familiar with basically say that someday it will only be necessary to work 20 hours a week to meet your needs (with varying opinions about what level of "need" we're talking about). If we're talking level one need (i.e. basic food shelter clothing) we're already there. But let's say we're talking level three needs (entertainment and socialization), how is it a doomsday scenario? It means "wonderful, now I have time to be doing what I actually want to be doing."
Quote from: dallen68 on October 03, 2014, 09:53:58 PM
Which predictions of 20 hour work weeks are these? The only ones I'm familiar with basically say that someday it will only be necessary to work 20 hours a week to meet your needs (with varying opinions about what level of "need" we're talking about). If we're talking level one need (i.e. basic food shelter clothing) we're already there. But let's say we're talking level three needs (entertainment and socialization), how is it a doomsday scenario? It means "wonderful, now I have time to be doing what I actually want to be doing."
Back in the 1972, The Club of Rome predicted total economic collapse unless we stop economic growth, on the claim that resources will run out.
So far, all predicted resource exhaustion has entirely failed to happen, due to improved technology (the lack of the models allowing for being a well-known criticism that started almost immediately), and the original models used are completely inapplicable now because we've been through at least one model-invalidating round of technological change (there's no possibility that anyone in 1972 could have predicted the effects that improved computers would have, for instance, or what biotechnology would allow).
Quote from: dallen68 on October 03, 2014, 09:53:58 PM
Which predictions of 20 hour work weeks are these? The only ones I'm familiar with basically say that someday it will only be necessary to work 20 hours a week to meet your needs (with varying opinions about what level of "need" we're talking about). If we're talking level one need (i.e. basic food shelter clothing) we're already there. But let's say we're talking level three needs (entertainment and socialization), how is it a doomsday scenario? It means "wonderful, now I have time to be doing what I actually want to be doing."
If we wanted to live like we did 200 years ago, we'd only need to work a few hours a week. But, of course, we'd have to do without electricity, running water, etc. As time goes on, the concept of the things we "need" changes. What were once pie-in-the-sky desires become necessities. Think of how necessary we consider vaccines to be (and rightly so), but how recently it's been that we've actually been able to make them well enough to eradicate the world's worst diseases!
Quote from: evensgrey on October 03, 2014, 10:44:33 PM
Back in the 1972, The Club of Rome predicted total economic collapse unless we stop economic growth, on the claim that resources will run out.
So far, all predicted resource exhaustion has entirely failed to happen, due to improved technology (the lack of the models allowing for being a well-known criticism that started almost immediately), and the original models used are completely inapplicable now because we've been through at least one model-invalidating round of technological change (there's no possibility that anyone in 1972 could have predicted the effects that improved computers would have, for instance, or what biotechnology would allow).
That's how it always is! They make the same Malthusian mistakes and never learn. A few years ago, there was an episode of Horizon (which I love) with David Attenborough (whom I love) talking about how many people this planet could ultimately sustain, and when we might reach that level. He came up with 18 billion (with no analysis of economic or technological factors, which has been the death of every Malthusian prediction ever, or even how birth rates converge on replacement fertility as wealth increases) and said that our food production would have to double in the next 40 years to avoid disaster, expressing incredulity that this could happen despite the fact that Norman Borlaug's contributions alone increased food production fivefold!
Quote from: MrBogosity on October 04, 2014, 07:46:59 AM
If we wanted to live like we did 200 years ago, we'd only need to work a few hours a week. But, of course, we'd have to do without electricity, running water, etc. As time goes on, the concept of the things we "need" changes. What were once pie-in-the-sky desires become necessities. Think of how necessary we consider vaccines to be (and rightly so), but how recently it's been that we've actually been able to make them well enough to eradicate the world's worst diseases!
And if we were content to live like we did in the 1950's (with electricity, running water, and primitive TV, but no personal computers, internet, cell phones, etc.) we'd probably only need to work 20 hours a week at the most.
As soon as a new technology comes along, it produces new desires to be met.
For instance, once reliable transistors were developed (the very early ones were less reliable than vacuum tubes), people started not only making everything electronic, entirely new devices were developed that could only be practically made using electronics. The cost benefits of high-volume mass production means almost everything these days is operated by a microcontroller (I've seen electric toothbrushes driven by microcontrollers). Ubiquitous computing isn't coming, it's BEEN HERE for years already. What people are really talking about is ubiquitous NETWORKING, and that could make a lot of current economic practices and strategies as obsolete as the current level of networking has made so many business and regulatory models.
Quote from: evensgrey on October 04, 2014, 09:40:52 AM
And if we were content to live like we did in the 1950's (with electricity, running water, and primitive TV, but no personal computers, internet, cell phones, etc.) we'd probably only need to work 20 hours a week at the most.
As soon as a new technology comes along, it produces new desires to be met.
For instance, once reliable transistors were developed (the very early ones were less reliable than vacuum tubes), people started not only making everything electronic, entirely new devices were developed that could only be practically made using electronics. The cost benefits of high-volume mass production means almost everything these days is operated by a microcontroller (I've seen electric toothbrushes driven by microcontrollers). Ubiquitous computing isn't coming, it's BEEN HERE for years already. What people are really talking about is ubiquitous NETWORKING, and that could make a lot of current economic practices and strategies as obsolete as the current level of networking has made so many business and regulatory models.
It's funny how that never ends up with society crashing itself, isn't it? So far, everytime technology has advanced to the point it made some business, regulatory, industrial, or social modal obsolete it has resulted in new opportunities and generally better conditions.
Quote from: dallen68 on October 04, 2014, 12:59:24 PM
It's funny how that never ends up with society crashing itself, isn't it? So far, everytime technology has advanced to the point it made some business, regulatory, industrial, or social modal obsolete it has resulted in new opportunities and generally better conditions.
While lots of societies have crashed (a lot of them quite hard), it's almost always been because they were essentially stagnant and ran into some problem they couldn't overcome because they were stagnant, and usually triggered by the things there were doing while stagnant. The ones that come to mind immediately are the Mayan city-building culture, the Indus Valley city-building culture, and Imperial Rome. The first two appear to have collapsed when the environment changed in such a way that their agricultural system collapsed (a common problem for cultures that don't innovate in how they produce food), and Rome had an ultimately fatal set of economic problems that didn't actually kill it off directly only because outside forces finished it once it was sufficiently weakened.
I don't think people are understanding my fear. This isn't an economic collapse I am fearing. What I am fearing is a mass of people, save for an elect few, being shut out of the economy altogether. With no economic value, the average human will not have anything to offer to justify being taken care of by sophisticated machines owned and operated by an elite few.
If we are lucky, this transition will be gradual, allowing the human population to slowly decline as human labor is phased out of the economy as more and more resources, which would otherwise be freely available, shift to a new ruling class of aristocratic oligarchs. It will be the oligarchs and their respective families that will live in the exclusive utopia where the machines see to their every need, not the masses of people who no longer have an economic value. They will be the ones who pass on the legacy of humanity. The rest of us will go extinct.
I'm not mincing words here. Even users of computers and networks will be replaced by yet even more sophisticated machines. Anything we can do, a machine can potentially do better, and probably will given enough time.
Quote from: Professor_Fennec on October 06, 2014, 03:27:47 AM
I don't think people are understanding my fear. This isn't an economic collapse I am fearing. What I am fearing is a mass of people, save for an elect few, being shut out of the economy altogether.
How does that happen? The economy IS people!
QuoteWith no economic value, the average human will not have anything to offer to justify being taken care of by sophisticated machines owned and operated by an elite few.
Wait, wait, where did this "owned and operated by an elite few" come from? That's new!
Anyway, you have people who aren't being taken care of by the machines (have unmet desires), and people who need work (untapped resources)...your problem solves itself!
Quote from: MrBogosity on October 06, 2014, 06:38:29 AM
How does that happen? The economy IS people!
The economy being people is the current paradigm because people exchange resources. In a fully automated economy, resources will be exchanged between machines, not people.
Quote from: MrBogosity on October 06, 2014, 06:38:29 AM
Wait, wait, where did this "owned and operated by an elite few" come from? That's new!
The notion of the "elite few" comes from the idea that sophisticated machines that take care of your needs will be to expensive for the masses who become increasingly unemployed because of their obsolescence. Because momentum plays a big role in markets, those who own the machines (lets assume these machines are sophisticated enough to be self replicating and self maintaining), will undoubtedly be the most wealthy and politically powerful people of their day because these will be the people wealthy enough to become early adopters of this new technology.
If the wealthy have their needs met, and can rely upon machines to get their work done and build their empires, what point is their to spend capital on human resources? Even jobs like research and development positions are not safe from automation and smarter-than-human AI.
Quote from: MrBogosity on October 06, 2014, 06:38:29 AM
Anyway, you have people who aren't being taken care of by the machines (have unmet desires), and people who need work (untapped resources)...your problem solves itself!
But it takes more than a need for work and a labor force to do that work in order to have a running economy. Like any system, economies are not immune to physics. People need various kinds of matter and energy in order to sustain and economy. The old human based economy will lose access to its resources because it won't be able to compete with the automated AI based economy.
Quote from: Professor_Fennec on October 07, 2014, 05:16:42 AM
But it takes more than a need for work and a labor force to do that work in order to have a running economy. Like any system, economies are not immune to physics. People need various kinds of matter and energy in order to sustain and economy. The old human based economy will lose access to its resources because it won't be able to compete with the automated AI based economy.
What are you basing this on?
Quote from: MrBogosity on October 07, 2014, 07:54:57 AM
What are you basing this on?
It's become quite clear he's basing it on paranoia. His argument is something like "Humans won't be able to operate in the economy because they won't be able to compete with AIs, which will prevent them from being able to access products and services from the AIs, which will (somehow) prevent them from trading with each other as well."
I know you're trying to get him to go into the "somehow" part or see that it doesn't work. He's been quite clear he won't.
Quote from: evensgrey on October 07, 2014, 05:01:23 PM
It's become quite clear he's basing it on paranoia. His argument is something like "Humans won't be able to operate in the economy because they won't be able to compete with AIs, which will prevent them from being able to access products and services from the AIs, which will (somehow) prevent them from trading with each other as well."
I know you're trying to get him to go into the "somehow" part or see that it doesn't work. He's been quite clear he won't.
Also, what's supposed to be preventing them from accessing the products and services from the AI's? So far, when a technology has come along that produces a something better than otherwise would have been, that product becomes more widely available. I don't see any reason it would be any different here.
If he's going to say because the humans can't produce what the AI's are producing, I'm going to say that the humans would then produce something else, even if the production amounts to consuming what the AI's are producing.
Quote from: dallen68 on October 07, 2014, 06:01:43 PM
Also, what's supposed to be preventing them from accessing the products and services from the AI's? So far, when a technology has come along that produces a something better than otherwise would have been, that product becomes more widely available. I don't see any reason it would be any different here.
If he's going to say because the humans can't produce what the AI's are producing, I'm going to say that the humans would then produce something else, even if the production amounts to consuming what the AI's are producing.
Anything we can do, a machine will figure out how to do better on its own. Its only a matter of time before machines become as smart as us, but what about when they become smarter than us? Don't you guys think that makes humans an obsolete technology? I don't see how that's paranoid as it is visionary. Perhaps you may have noticed the lack of ape men running around, and a dwindling number of apes in the wild. Don't think for a second that we couldn't go extinct, too, by a superior intelligence that came from us.
Quote from: Professor_Fennec on October 18, 2014, 06:02:19 AM
Anything we can do, a machine will figure out how to do better on its own. Its only a matter of time before machines become as smart as us, but what about when they become smarter than us? Don't you guys think that makes humans an obsolete technology? I don't see how that's paranoid as it is visionary. Perhaps you may have noticed the lack of ape men running around, and a dwindling number of apes in the wild. Don't think for a second that we couldn't go extinct, too, by a superior intelligence that came from us.
Last I checked, The Terminator franchise was science fiction, not a documentary series.
Where and how will this True AI get the energy and materials needed to function and propagate? How do you know they'll win out against competing technologies, i.e. brain augmentation, brain uploading? If they try to take over, how will they deal with countermeasures such as nukes and EMPs? What necessitates that True AI becomes antagonistic in the first place?
Remember than natural selection is about survival of the fittest, not necessarily the fastest, or the strongest, or, no, not even the smartest. We may perhaps produce an AI well and truly beyond the capabilities of the human brain, but if it can't get the energy it needs to function, what does it matter? What if it requires very rare materials? Can't propagate if you need materials which simply don't exist.
I could go on, but the point is that we simply don't know enough about True AI to make any accurate predictions about it. Forget "when" or "how," we don't even know if True AI will even come about. How can we even hope to make any accurate predictions about what will happen once it does? Your fears are based entirely on speculation.
Isn't "True AI" an oxymoron anyway?
Quote from: MrBogosity on October 19, 2014, 09:05:56 AM
Isn't "True AI" an oxymoron anyway?
Only in the sense that everything we know about intelligence indicates any particular system either does or does not display any particular aspect of it.
As to whether or not you can build an intelligent system, I think it follows inevitably that it can be done provided only that mind-body duality is false, as is indicated by all reliable data.
Quote from: MrBogosity on October 19, 2014, 09:05:56 AM
Isn't "True AI" an oxymoron anyway?
I honestly don't know, and all of the examples which come to mind are fictional anyway. I'm thinking about the factory-built robots from Terminator and The Matrix as much as I am the Neruo AIs from Metal Gear Rising, which are basically artificial
brains, and as such can't have their experiences copy/pasted over to another system.
Quote from: Altimadark on October 19, 2014, 12:47:17 PM
I honestly don't know, and all of the examples which come to mind are fictional anyway. I'm thinking about the factory-built robots from Terminator and The Matrix as much as I am the Neruo AIs from Metal Gear Rising, which are basically artificial brains, and as such can't have their experiences copy/pasted over to another system.
Yeah, but they weren't "true AI" like the kid in the movie A.I. was. In fact, in
Terminator 2 we learned that their brains were specifically inhibited to prevent them from thinking for themselves, hence the "reprogramming" scene where they remove the inhibitor. The kid in A.I. was truly intelligent, so in that case I'm wondering how the word "artificial" would imply to it (it would apply to the makeup of his body, but not his intelligence).
Okay, I think I understand what you're saying; I unwittingly applied a broad definition to a specific term. My bad.
Quote from: Altimadark on October 19, 2014, 03:18:32 PM
Okay, I think I understand what you're saying; I unwittingly applied a broad definition to a specific term. My bad.
Oh, it's not just you, it's how EVERYONE is using the term A.I.!
Quote from: MrBogosity on October 20, 2014, 06:57:00 AM
Oh, it's not just you, it's how EVERYONE is using the term A.I.!
That makes me feel marginally better. Marginally.
Quote from: Professor_Fennec on October 18, 2014, 06:02:19 AM
Anything we can do, a machine will figure out how to do better on its own. Its only a matter of time before machines become as smart as us, but what about when they become smarter than us? Don't you guys think that makes humans an obsolete technology? I don't see how that's paranoid as it is visionary. Perhaps you may have noticed the lack of ape men running around, and a dwindling number of apes in the wild. Don't think for a second that we couldn't go extinct, too, by a superior intelligence that came from us.
That's a completely separate thing. The species we are now is not the same as 40,000 years ago. The species we are now is not the same as the one that will be 40,000 years from now. We will become extinct. Whether that is because our descendants evolve into a better suited species, or we create a mechanical species is irrelevant to the question. Either way, we will be unaware of the difference.
I'm not sure what "True AI" even means, but you could break AI down into a spectrum.
On one end, you would have basic AI where a program makes decisions based on pre-programmed decision tree. More advanced versions might have the ability to modify what decisions it makes in the future based on past events. Modern AI simulates neurons, creating virtual neural networks to allow for "thinking" more akin to an actual brain, including features such as pattern recognition and situation analysis. The more complex the neural network, the more complex the tasks an AI can complete. Imagine what one of these neural networks could do if, say, they were build from more than 100 billion virtual neurons, which is roughly equivalent to how many biological neurons a human brain has. Once we get to that point, I think we will have been well past the usefullness of the term "AI", as the word "synthetic intelligence" would probably be more apt.
Now imagine Moore's law still in effect, allowing computer power to double every 18 months. That means, every 18 months, computers would double the amount of virtual neurons they could support. That would be a nominal increase in synthetic intelligence, easily beating human intelligence, with all of its biological limitations. At that point, it becomes impossible for the human brain to out-evolve the speed at which computer based intelligence can advance.
The problem is, Moore's Law is predicted to run out mid-2020s: that's when transistors become so small that quantum effects make them useless (and even then, the fact that Dennard Scaling's already petered out means that we just won't get the same effect from them anyway). So further advances will have to wait for quantum computing, and who knows if there's some corollary of Moore's Law that will apply to that? It could stop AI development in its tracks, or give it just the push it needs!
Quote from: MrBogosity on October 23, 2014, 06:52:38 AM
The problem is, Moore's Law is predicted to run out mid-2020s: that's when transistors become so small that quantum effects make them useless (and even then, the fact that Dennard Scaling's already petered out means that we just won't get the same effect from them anyway). So further advances will have to wait for quantum computing, and who knows if there's some corollary of Moore's Law that will apply to that? It could stop AI development in its tracks, or give it just the push it needs!
It won't entirely run out, we'll just stop being able to squeeze more into less space. Improvements in process technology will still allow larger devices for a while yet, but eventually a maximum practical die size will be reached. If we can get a superconductor we can layer in there and devise a practical means to build up as well as out, then we've got a long way to go yet.
Quote from: evensgrey on October 23, 2014, 07:47:24 AM
It won't entirely run out, we'll just stop being able to squeeze more into less space.
That's what Moore's Law is!
Quote from: MrBogosity on October 23, 2014, 10:18:10 AM
That's what Moore's Law is!
Ah, no, it isn't. Moore's Law just gives a rate at which the number of transistors that can be put on a single die increases. The progressive reduction in size of transistors and diodes has been a major mechanism allowing this (along with improvements in process technology that have allowed improvements in the quality and size of wafers to improve yields, allowing the practicable die size to increase).
If we could, for instance, add additional layers of transistors over top of existing layers, we could continue to add additional transistors to dies, allowing Moore's Law to continue longer. At this time, it is not viable to add additional layers over existing ones, but when we can no longer make smaller junctions, or bigger dies, this will be the only way forward.
It may be that we can't get computers much smaller then they already are, but you may have noticed that clock speeds haven't been increasing much as of late, either.
If manufacturers can successfully transition to graphene or diamond wafers from silicon, then computing power could be increased dramatically, going from just a few Ghz to Thz speeds, since these materials can withstand significantly higher temperatures and voltages that silicon wafers simply cannot touch without extreme cooling techniques.
We may yet still see great increases in computing power before the quantum computing revolution takes hold.
Quote from: Professor_Fennec on October 26, 2014, 05:24:16 PM
It may be that we can't get computers much smaller then they already are, but you may have noticed that clock speeds haven't been increasing much as of late, either.
Yes, due to the petering out of Dennard Scaling that I mentioned.
QuoteIf manufacturers can successfully transition to graphene or diamond wafers from silicon, then computing power could be increased dramatically, going from just a few Ghz to Thz speeds, since these materials can withstand significantly higher temperatures and voltages that silicon wafers simply cannot touch without extreme cooling techniques.
How fast is their switching power, though?
Quote from: MrBogosity on October 26, 2014, 06:01:32 PM
How fast is their switching power, though?
I'm not sure what you mean by power. Power is usually a term that references the combination of speed and strength.
As I understand it, one of the limitations of silicon is that it burns at lower temperatures than graphene and most certainly diamond, so to achieve higher clock speeds you need expensive cooling setups to handle the voltages required. Also, silicon transistors are more fragile, meaning that they have a tendency to break over time. The faster the clock speed, the more stress the transistors are put under.
Graphene and diamond are much stronger than silicon, so their transistors should be much more durable at high clock speeds. Plus, they can withstand much higher temperatures, meaning you can crank up the voltage to extreme levels without elaborate cooling systems.
Quote from: Professor_Fennec on October 30, 2014, 05:38:28 AM
I'm not sure what you mean by power. Power is usually a term that references the combination of speed and strength.
As I understand it, one of the limitations of silicon is that it burns at lower temperatures than graphene and most certainly diamond, so to achieve higher clock speeds you need expensive cooling setups to handle the voltages required. Also, silicon transistors are more fragile, meaning that they have a tendency to break over time. The faster the clock speed, the more stress the transistors are put under.
Graphene and diamond are much stronger than silicon, so their transistors should be much more durable at high clock speeds. Plus, they can withstand much higher temperatures, meaning you can crank up the voltage to extreme levels without elaborate cooling systems.
The current race appears to be between the materials people working on carbon-based semiconductors and the materials people working on new superconductors operating at typical chip operating temperatures. (A superconductor that operates at typical chip operating temperatures would be the ultimate heat pipe and allow for less waste heat production in the first place.)