we will have simulated AI non-sentient female android robots in 2033 and we will be able to reverse aging in 2053. Ray Kurzweil.

[Dr. Bludy]

i know you have autism too, do you always look at people in the eyes when you talk to them?

No im normal

 

[gamma2]

yes after the sixth paradigm gets us back to the trendline

this means predictions that use moor's law could still be applied but would be a few years to decades behind the predicted date I would assume...

 

[Deleted member 24589]

i dont wanna be alive that long to witness that fuck that. More fucked up man made horrors.

 

[gamma2]

No, computational power will keep rising at the same speed no matter what paradigm, nothing can accelerate or slow the law of law of accelerating returns, paradigm changes are the only ones who can slow it but after some time the technological progress will go back to the trendline

So you're suggesting the predictions with moor's law won't have a significant delay? Im somewhat confused here since the computational power rise is the very essence of the moor's law.

 

[gamma2]

Those predictions are not based on Moore's law but on computational price efficiency doublings

So "moor's law" predictions can still be applied but they should be based on computational price efficiency doubling rather than the moor's law even though they say they base it off of the moor's law...?

 

[sub6manletnozygos]

amusing but idk about the effectiveness of your multiplier.
appeals to Kurweil's phd authority also wasnt very persuasive.

as an aside, its worth noting that whenever people try to predict technology they ignore anthropological trends.

all your technology predictions operate on the assumption that human beings are sufficiently genetically healthy to continue to innovate. i argue that this is not the case.

weakened selection pressures:
per capita innovation peaked in the late 1800s. given harsh selection pressures only the rich and healthy bred. with the industrial revolution and widespread, cheap and effective medical treatment people who would have otherwise died, reproduced.
opposing breeding strategies meant that the wealthy engaged a slow life history strategy investing in fewer offspring, if any at all, in exchange for resources while fast life history strategists did the opposite. overtime, this has made humanity more mentally and physical sicker. environmental factors (carcinogens (herbicides/pesticides/parabens), EMFs, sedentary lifestyle, erosion of linguistic skills, reformulation of education system and reliance on technology has also contributed to weakened selection pressures and higher mutational load. this has resulted in the reversal of the flynn effect & a generally decline in genetic health worldwide.

malthusian cycles & accelerationism:
linear resources cant sustain parabolic population. this is made worse by above issues as well as astrological issues like weakening magnetic poles. this leads to infrastructure collapse and civil unrest. i suspect contemporary eugenicists with influence & power, seek to artificially accelerate the inevitable malthusian decline to temper social unrest from infrastructure collapse to something more manageable (less people, less chaos).

race against time - high mutational load & malthusian cycles versus reaching singularity: the flynn effect has reversed (as well as all the associated markers of iq including counting backwards, iq tests, general health). mortality rate is increasing, new births are declining. given this, i argue that we dont have enough genetic time to come up with the singularity or the technology you talk about, let alone even maintain what we currently have at a global scale.
all your predictions will likely not occur within your small time frame, and if they did they would only be accessible to a tiny elite who are able to weather the genetic decline of the masses & the associated infrastructure collapse.
what is most likely at this point, is complete infrastructure collapse, and a 600+ year dark age with the elites being swept away with the global decline unless they are able to successfully achieve a space colony (a modern day noahs ark if you will) or do so suspended in the atmosphere or underground.

 

[gamma2]

you think that just because Moore's law has slowed technology the predictions will take longer to happen, but after Moore's law dies in 2025, the sixth paradigm will be created and the sixth paradigm will get us back to the trendline by doubling computational price efficiency faster than it will ever will but when we get back to the trendline that technological increase will slow down because we would already be in the trendline:

View attachment 2030551

So this should mean that the new paradigm will have a computational efficiency increase greater than 1.52x but this number will slowly decrease as time goes by.....

I was wondering what you made of other predictions. (I. E. A computer scientist predicted we should have prosthetic limbs that serve a completely identical function to that of real limbs by 2035 and said that this was based on the moor's law. Does that mean this prediction is still valid or would it be moved to a later date since it said it used the Moor's law)

 

[gamma2]

if it was made before Moore's law started dying slowly in 2012 then it should be valid after we get back to the trendline

I believe the prediction was made using the Moor's law and was after 2012. If that's the case then the prediction would be delayed right? (because computational efficiency increases have been slowing down lately)

 

[gamma2]

they would say it would be delayed but it would become true earlier after the we go back to the trendline

So essentially all predictions using Moor's law before or after 2012 should be valid after we get back to the trendline? What about the fact that it's not the Moor's law but rather the computational efficency increase that you talked about earlier? (Still a bit confused on that) BTW maybe we should move this to the PMs..

 

[gamma2]

I just believe that you should only trust Kurzweil, because i have already researched most of his predictions and 99 percent of them were late but right

Fair enough but most other predictions I read also come from credible scientists themselves. Should I trust them because they say they are using the Moor's law?