You're looking at Less Wrong's discussion board. This includes all posts, including those that haven't been promoted to the front page yet. For more information, see About Less Wrong.

quanticle comments on Journal of Consciousness Studies issue on the Singularity - Less Wrong Discussion

14 Post author: lukeprog 02 March 2012 03:56PM

You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.

Comments (85)

You are viewing a single comment's thread.

Comment author: quanticle 02 March 2012 10:07:34PM 5 points [-]

Our reason for placing the Singularity within the lifetimes of practi- cally everyone now living who is not already retired, is the fact that our supercomputers already have sufficient power to run a Singularity level program (Tipler, 2007). We lack not the hardware, but the soft- ware. Moore’s Law insures that today’s fastest supercomputer speed will be standard laptop computer speed in roughly twenty years (Tipler, 1994).

Really? I was unaware that Moore's law was an actual physical law. Our state of the art has already hit the absolute physical limit of transistor design - we have single atom transistors in the lab. So, if you'll forgive me, I'll be taking the claim of, "Moore's law ensures that today's fastest supercomputer speed will be the standard laptop computer speed in 20 years with a bit of salt."

Now, perhaps we'll have some other technology that allows laptops twenty years hence to be as powerful as supercomputers today. But to just handwave that enormous engineering problem away by saying, "Moore's law will take care of it," is fuzzy thinking of worst sort.

Comment author: DanielVarga 03 March 2012 09:54:09AM 5 points [-]

True. But this one would not make the top 20 list of most problematic statements from the Tipler paper.

Comment author: gwern 15 March 2012 05:34:52PM 1 point [-]

Indeed. For example, I raised my eyebrows when I came across the 2007 claim we already have enough. But that was far from the most questionable claim in the paper, and I didn't feel like reading Tipler 2007 to see what lurked within.