1. Comment #25508 by charlesj on March 13, 2007 at 10:25 pm

That is one of the most awe-inspiring slideshows I've seen in quite a while.

Other Comments by charlesj

2. Comment #25529 by Lord_Satorious on March 14, 2007 at 2:20 am

I'm always amazed when someone claims to be against globalization. It makes me wonder if there were people against the formation of individual nations. Or even further back, tribes against the formation of villages. Every eighteen months, computer processing power is doubling. What exactly will computers do when they're more intelligent than we are, and aware of it? Actually, I'm inclined to think everyday life will be very much the same. A significant difference being you will be able to download porn from the internet much faster.

Other Comments by Lord_Satorious

3. Comment #25542 by Newton30 on March 14, 2007 at 3:40 am

This video is based on wild extrapolations that historically have been discredited. Just look at what we thought the year 2000 was going to be like back in 1960. Intergalactic travel anyone?

Already, Moore's law is on its way out. If I check out my local computer store's stock, new, more powerful processors are much too expensive. The computational power of common PCs has not changed in the last 3 years or so, and prices for the same equipment have stagnated during that period. Even today's existing computers are already wildly overpowered for everyday applications. There is just no incentive to build more powerful computers (except maybe graphics cards for games).

One of the several reasons why a lot of satellite manufacturers are going out of business (who would have guessed this 15 years ago?) is that their satellites produce so much accurate data, (weather, terrain, etc.) that their customers don't know what to do with it. You have Google Maps today. How can you improve on that?

The tidbit about exabytes of information being exchanged today is an illusion, and borders on intelligent-design-advocate style of deception. Do you think information can be measured and compared this way? If a primitive homosapiens from 10 000 BC looked out from his cave and saw the mountain scenery surrounding him, knowing that the human eye can distinguish 20 million colors or so, and a resolution of say, 20 Megapixels, and say he can take in a picture in 100 milliseconds, would he be downloading 4 000 terabits of information per second? And you thought your 4Mbps cable connection from 2007 AD was smokin'.

I'm not a biologist, just a lowly engineer, but I find the claim that a computer will one day exceed the computing power of the entire human race particularly ridiculous. The very notion of comparing the computing power of the entire human race to that of a computer is absurd. A computer's value (human or electronic) depends most on the tasks it's assigned. Sometimes, successfully calculating 2+2 is more important and more useful than calculating the value of pi to the billionth digit. No matter how powerful a computer is, it is limited by the quality of its inputs and the usefulness of its outputs. Remember Douglas Adams' 'Deep Thought' supercomputer, that found after 7.5 million years of calculations, that the answer to 'the meaning of Life, the Universe, Everything' is 42.

Other Comments by Newton30

4. Comment #25550 by JeffW on March 14, 2007 at 4:30 am

Perhaps it's the onset of the abiogenesis of artificial life, to occur over the next few thousand years. In that case, we're the enzymes putting it together. Awe-inspiring, yes. But humbling, as always. First we were survival machines. Now we're enzymes.

When does the tool become the tool-user? Or do the two merge in a symbiotic relationship? Computers work for us, but we also work for them, as any manufacturer or distributor can attest to.

Other Comments by JeffW

5. Comment #25557 by Henri Bergson on March 14, 2007 at 4:47 am

Nonsense. People do not even understand the mind yet, let alone are therefore able to predict its overcoming.

T2 was not produced by Nostradamus.

Other Comments by Henri Bergson

6. Comment #25569 by Skeptic Jim on March 14, 2007 at 6:24 am

While most of this was based on overly-simplistic extrapolation, the overall message is sound. Think about how much knowledge you have gained since you first plugged into the internet. Knowledge that you wouldn't otherwise have if it weren't so readily available. I can't speak for others but for a curious animal such as myself, the www has had a profound impact on my level of knowledge and understanding of the natural universe. This comes from being curious enough to look up topics that I hear or read about and don't yet understand. Easy access to this information is our best bet to combat ignorance and superstition. All we need to work on now is ensuring that everyone gains some understanding of critical thinking. That being the only thing that might prevent people from choosing to gain their worldly knowledge from the answers in genesis web site.

Other Comments by Skeptic Jim

7. Comment #25570 by charlesj on March 14, 2007 at 6:27 am

RE: Newton30

"One of the several reasons why a lot of satellite manufacturers are going out of business (who would have guessed this 15 years ago?) is that their satellites produce so much accurate data, (weather, terrain, etc.) that their customers don't know what to do with it. You have Google Maps today. How can you improve on that?"

May I paraphrase?

"Let's just give up. We've done everything we can, and there is nothing more to do."

Other Comments by charlesj

8. Comment #25572 by Jeebus on March 14, 2007 at 6:37 am

I agree the comparison of human and processor computational power is slightly flawed. That said from my breif contact with genetic programming I know that computational power is a very important factor in the quality of it's results. Super computers have already generated circuit designs that outstrip the best created by humans, (if I have time I'll find a link to the papers), inaccurate as the predictions made in the presentation may be I would be interested to see what sort of designs are produced as technology improves.

Other Comments by Jeebus

9. Comment #25575 by jonecc on March 14, 2007 at 6:52 am

Excellent as they are, I can think of many ways that Google Maps could be improved. Better resolution, detailed mapping of wider areas, more regular updates.

With regard to Moore's Law, as I understand it this was originally related to the number of transistors on a circuit board, although it's used in general parlance to mean "how fast computers get better". I would have thought the most important measure at the moment would be bandwidth, which for me in the UK has more than doubled in the last year and a half, since I've been with my current supplier.

Not that simple number crunching in itself guarantees machines with human capacities anyway. It's how you use it that counts.

Other Comments by jonecc

10. Comment #25618 by Luthien on March 14, 2007 at 10:36 am

3. Comment #25542 by Newton30 on March 14, 2007 at 3:40 am

This video is based on wild extrapolations that historically have been discredited. Just look at what we thought the year 2000 was going to be like back in 1960. Intergalactic travel anyone?

Already, Moore's law is on its way out. If I check out my local computer store's stock, new, more powerful processors are much too expensive. The computational power of common PCs has not changed in the last 3 years or so, and prices for the same equipment have stagnated during that period. Even today's existing computers are already wildly overpowered for everyday applications. There is just no incentive to build more powerful computers (except maybe graphics cards for games).

Moor's law is not "on it's way out". If you read New Scientist you would know all about the latest developments in transistors that will allow it to continue for a long time to come (using a graphite like coating that is only one atom thick), not to mention quantum computing and photonics.

You seem unimpressed with Google world, I can remember looking at an atlas at school, now I can pick a spot on the globe and zoom right in to see what kind of area it is (like a hotel I might book for a holiday). In a few short years I have already gained so much knowledge and power at my fingertips. Long may it continue!

(And where the hell have you been buying computer parts??? If they still charge the same prices as 3 years ago they are ripping you off mate!)

Other Comments by Luthien

11. Comment #25685 by Duff on March 14, 2007 at 5:39 pm

Yeah, ok, Luxembourg just passed the US. Oh, my, what shall we do??
China has more babies. What a revelation. What a lot of extraneous BS.

Other Comments by Duff

12. Comment #25691 by Newton30 on March 14, 2007 at 6:21 pm

I'm not suggesting anyone 'give up' looking for advances and improvements. Whatever advances are made, I'll take them gladly. But I was ranting about this video preaching some so-claimed amazing predictions that I think are BS. Past performances do not guarantee future results. I plan to wait for these promised benefits before celebrating them.

I am actually quite impressed with Google maps. Nearly every corner of the globe at your fingertips, all for free. But if you look for a close-up of New York City, you'll find the resolution limited. Not because of technological constraints, but security concerns. What amount of computational power could overcome that?

Other Comments by Newton30

13. Comment #25700 by Spinoza on March 14, 2007 at 6:54 pm

Globalism is dead... lol

Other Comments by Spinoza

14. Comment #25702 by Zaphod on March 14, 2007 at 6:57 pm

Fantastic post.

Other Comments by Zaphod

15. Comment #25714 by neander on March 14, 2007 at 7:29 pm

By the year 2100 information will be generated so fast that 13 out of every ten questions will be answered before they were thought of. The doubling of processing power will occur backwards in time, and robots will rule the earth.

Other Comments by neander

16. Comment #26092 by chegosu on March 16, 2007 at 6:43 pm

What an idiotic video.

Yeah, the math departments in schools all over the world were overtaken by Ti-83s and the human beings became obsolete. After all, they can calculate problems in the blink of an eye.

Other Comments by chegosu

17. Comment #26095 by BaronOchs on March 16, 2007 at 6:49 pm

I remember someone worrying that oneday they'll ask a supercomputer if the Riemann hypothesis is true and it will say: "yes but you'll never understand the proof"!

Other Comments by BaronOchs

18. Comment #26472 by macronencer on March 19, 2007 at 2:04 pm

Thanks BaronOchs, that's one for the quotes file!

I'd really like to select just a few salient points from this video to read over the phone to my (Internet-challenged) parents. Anyone know whether there's a transcript to be had anywhere? I'll pay good money.

Actually I lied about the money.

Other Comments by macronencer

19. Comment #26487 by jamesstephenbrown on March 19, 2007 at 5:08 pm

I understand that many future predictions have been extraordinarily far out, but this has largely to do with what has been commercially viable. It says more about our inability to determine in what directions technology will go, not about how much our technology will grow. To say things like this...

"You have Google Maps today. How can you improve on that?"

"Even today's existing computers are already wildly overpowered for everyday applications."

... is laughably naive. Quotes that, if they were more public, might go down in history with others like...

"640K ought to be enough for anybody."
Microsoft Chairman Bill Gates, 1981

"I think there is a world market for maybe five computers."
IBM Chairman Thomas Watson, 1943

and

"Everything that can be invented has been invented."
Charles H. Duell, Commissioner, U.S. Office of Patents, 1899.

Other Comments by jamesstephenbrown

20. Comment #253367 by carbonman on September 24, 2008 at 11:21 am

The opening statistic - available in various guises, comparing the 28% (or sometimes 7%) of the Chinese population with the highest IQ, with the population of North America (or sometimes UK) - is plain silly. Of course 28% of a large number is bigger than 100% of a much smaller number. And that's true whether the criterion is IQ, shoe size or length of nose.

The video refers to a country called 'Great Britain'. There is no such country. Great Britain is an island comprising England, Scotland and Wales, all of which are parts of (but do not constitute all of) the United Kingdom.

Other Comments by carbonman