Re: limits to exponential growth (RE: Other signpoststowardsthe Singularity)

From: Eliezer S. Yudkowsky (
Date: Mon Jul 23 2001 - 15:26:36 MDT

James Higgins wrote:
> Out of concern that my silence would be construed as agreement I make this
> post.
> My opinion is that Moore's Law has a specific definition having to do with
> transistor counts in Integrated Circuits. There may be many similar
> effects in other fields, but they are not Moore's Law. The problem with
> the Newton comparison is that there is a "constant amount" that remains the
> same regardless of using apples, bowling balls or buildings. There is no
> constant amount between transistor counts, actual CPU performance,
> productivity of clerks, or others. There certainly are similar values, but
> no constant.

Lest my silence be construed as disagreement I will also post; I think
that James Higgins has a point. I also think it's a lost terminological
battle and am frankly pitching in with the forces of popularized darkness
on this one, but I still respect the last few beleaguered defenders on the
precisionist side.

-- -- -- -- --
Eliezer S. Yudkowsky
Research Fellow, Singularity Institute for Artificial Intelligence

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Jul 17 2013 - 04:00:37 MDT