Is Moore's Law dead?

>>7767808
>Singularity fags BTFO

>>7767808
primarily it is because we have hit the limit of easy reduction and new gains are increasingly difficult to mass produce. underlying this is the problem that lithography cant get much tighter than it already is.

>>7767808
decoherence of single photon transistors

>>7767808
>make a bullshit "law"
>WHY IS IT NOT WORKING!?!??

fuck off

>>7767811
>doesnt understand the difference between software and hardware

>>7767819
>pentiums use photonic transistors

please..

File: cherries and picking.jpg (34KB, 548x476px) Image search: [Google]

34KB, 548x476px

>>7767808
nah

>>7767808
It was never all that much of a law in the first place. I think a lot of people are going to be in for a rude awakening when in 20 years we have nothing new other than slightly faster computers and higher resolutions. Innovation is dead. "The future" as it's described in science fiction and cyberpunk will never be.

WHAT ABOUT MURPHYS LAW LOL

>>7767808
he literally thinks that progress is linear


HAHAHAHAHAHAH

>>7767865
>"The future" as it's described in science fiction and cyberpunk will never be.


>where are my flying cars ???

---any normie on earth

>>7767883
that's a logarithmic scale, you retard

>>7767808
>this graph which ends with shitty pentium processors in the 90s disproves technological advancement
I find /sci/'s gullibility hilarious.

>>7767883
Everyone look at this retard and laugh

Besides production cost issues, high performance computers for the average consumer is technically a national security risk.

>>7767883
>literally thinks
dumbass

>>7767884
The "normies" are right. When was the last time you were really excited for a new piece of technology? Everything is just slightly faster phones etc. now. The only thing that comes to mind is VR and that is already failing. Driverless cars are failing since they don't work every time they are not in ideal weather conditions. Technology is pretty much at the best it's gonna get.

>>7767902
>when things that are bottom floor entries into a subset of technologies that didn't previously exist don't work perfectly, they are "failing"
Remember when the internet failed because 56k was so bad? Thank god we all learned our lesson and moved on.

>>7767902
A lot of States in the US are outlawing driverless cars because many States would see a huge decrease in revenue from traffic tickets.

>>7767808
Moore's law describes the rate in which the number of transistors on a chip doubles.

HOWEVER, it was never designed to account for quantum mechanics. The transistors are so small, quantum tunneling is becoming an obstacle that takes extra design time. The equipment to mass produce the chips also take longer to make.

I mean, the chip in your phone has about a billion to two billion transistors. In six years instead of four, Chips will have about six to eight billion transistors.

>>7767908
Not the same. The price isn't even one of the major failings of VR. But it does put the nail in the coffin. There's still:

-the requirement of an extremely high-end machine to run it, making the price effectively higher
-nogamez, this will especially hit ps4 VR which is already going to be filled with shovelware due to the fact that the ps4 really can't handle VR
-It has no potential. It really can't go anywhere other than some cheap games and movies

Still doesn't change the fact that tech as a whole is lacking in this day and age.

>>7767920
no

>>7767924
>Still doesn't change the fact that tech as a whole is lacking in this day and age.

No, moron, we have Smart phones. They have been a huge game changer and are an incredible leap in technology.

9 years ago, no one had a computer with wireless mobile internet in their back pockets at all time.

>>7767924
>making the entirety of VR development about the jewbook machine when everyone and their mother is scrambling to get something out the door
>implying being expensive and limited in scope is a unique problem for an emerging technology

>>7767935
>we have smartphones
Let that statement sink in.
Either way, the original iphone was released in 2007.

>>7767936
And the others will magically be cheaper and get past the fact that VR as a whole is pretty much just a gimmick?

File: hqdefault.jpg (20KB, 480x360px) Image search: [Google]

20KB, 480x360px

>>7767950
How do smartphones exist at all? Cellphones should have failed before ever evolving, because they started out as expensive, clunky, and of limited use. Goddamn idiots perpetuated the cellphone meme, they should have been able to tell it was a gimmick.

>>7767963
The difference is in the fact that the newest phones now are really just small computers and not an improvement on the original tech in the phone. Something like VR won't have any kind of improvement from haphazardly slapping computers inside it. It won't make it any better.

>>7767971
I don't think there's anything left to do but laugh at you.

>>7767975
>gets BTFO
>i-im laffin at u!!!
In 20 years you will see that all you have is slightly faster computers and you will remember this.

>>7767978
Of course, you will never be able to point to any time in the last century where a 20 year period didn't see massive upheavals in technology, but this time will be different. Cause we kept slappin the computilateridoos into the widgerydots. Right, BTFO.

>>7767987
Technology has hit it's cap, m8. Deal with it.

>>7768001
Please, post another graph from the 90s to prove how technology is entering a standstill in 2015.

>>7768007
SHIT 2016
I'm living in the past, I've been outed.

>>7768007
All you will see is an increase in computer power. You won't see any new innovations or inventions. Just the same shit but faster.

>>7768016
Uh huh.

>>7768017
So then, you agree. Nice talk.

>>7768023
Yes. All technological progress is going to magically stop now. You sure showed me.

>>7767924
AR is far more useful/exciting than VR anyway.

>>7768034
your opinions are lame and retarded

>>7768034
>see some shitty animations over the real world
> look like a total retard wearing those glasses in public
>exciting and useful

>>7768034
AR and VR are merging into the same thing anyway. See: that thing microsoft demoed a while back.

>>7768053
Hololense is complete garbage and a quick look at any of their (staged) tech demos will show you that.

>>7768057
AR is shit to begin with, so it's not saying much that it's still shit when incorporated into VR. That's still the route it's headed, though.

I'm itching so hard to facepalm myself unconscious due to this thread.

The rate at which technology and science is being developed will keep accelerating.

In 20 years time:

Mars will have hundreds of people trying to establish a colony due to the advancements in technology which have taken place over the last 50 years.

3D printing ... do I even need to go there?

Quantum computers will not see mass adaptation due to their niche applications but there will be a lot of development especially as classical computers will need to start dealing with quantum properties.

I want to say more but I feel ashamed because I just realized that I can only be responding to what must have been bait or unsubstantiated blind conjecture.

>>7767808
ohm's law is the reason why

>>7769401
that and how current transistors work along with cost

>>7767920
...and a huge decrease in ER visits.

>>7767816
Correct. The "easy reduction" with associated increased clock speeds has reached an end.

Symmetric multi-processing / multi-core CPUs is the current strategy for improving performance, but you often need to re-write software to realise full performance gain.

>>7767808
It's high time Moore's Law was revised.

memes law was only an observation either way

>>7767935
>worshipping smartphones
You're as dumb as it gets.

>>7767808

Because we are reaching the limit of what we can currently do with electronic transistors. We will hit the limit of how small we can possible make them (and thus how many we can pack onto a chip) within 5-10 years, although the price may continue to drop for a while after that. Further performance can be gained with parallel processing, but that is often very complex and requires a lot of rewritten code for shit that's already out there, or a lot more skill and discipline on the part of software developers than they currently have.

It doesn't necessarily mean Moore's law is dead, since there are alternatives to transistors and the computers of today under which it could continue. However, unlike in the past, it's going to require a major replacement of existing infrastructure, and probably for a lot of industries it simply won't be worth the investment until the benefits become obvious.

What I think we'll see is a 10-year plateau of "Moore's law" for everyday electronics before some company gets the balls to take the initiative on the next computer hardware paradigm.

When are we going to have 3d chips?

>>7770169

We already revise it by tacking on an extra six months to the doubling time every decade.

>>7767935
lots of pople had pda's back then, and sony ericson p900 / nokia communicator and stuff, and they were already called smartphone.

File: Muh Power density.png (41KB, 768x539px) Image search: [Google]

41KB, 768x539px

>>7767808

HEAT

>no reason for it to remain true
>nevertheless they call it a law

stay classy, CS fags

>>7770919
>look, I posted another decade old chart

File: bigdog.gif (2MB, 389x310px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 389x310px

>>7768016
kek. This is the mark of an uneducated and unimaginative mind.

Sure, with the way things are going right now, we're pretty well fucked on the exciting new tech front. That's because, as the world stands right now, a lot of the major powers are working on humanitarian technologies to get the rest of the world caught up. Look at Facebook's free internet thing in india, or Google's wind-power generating blimps with Wi-fi, or NYC's plans to supply public wi-fi. Right now we're in an equalising stage. The goal isn't to advance technology so much as it is to spread it. That's not to say that there aren't new technologies being developed, but you can only discover electricity once.

And you're completely ignoring advances in software development. Let's focus on just the medical field, yeah? There are numerous examples of advances that have the potential to save lives, reduce the cost of medical care, and by extension spread it to parts of the world that need it. Look at IBM's Watson. While it may seem like a gimmick now, with a skyrocketing world population, especially in parts of the world with limited medical care, it makes complete sense to train humanitarian workers as nurses and have Watson do the actual doctoring. Now you say, "What about surgery?" Enter the da Vinci Surgery System. That shit can peel the skin off a grape, and sure it requires an operator, but hooking that motherfucker up to the internet and using surgeons in the developed world would be trivial.

Hey, now let's look at the rest of modern robotics. Look at companies like Boston Dynamics and IRobot, and universities like Carnegie Melon and MiT, and the all the others I can't name off the top of my head. They're all doing brand new stuff that's never been seen before. Exoskeletons for soldiers, autonomous robotic pack-horses (pic related), humanoid robots for natural disaster recovery efforts, there are new developments in the field of robots all the time.

cont.

>>7771193

Now let's talk about space travel. NASA and the Russian's aren't the only ones going to space, and they're not even the best. Look at SpaceX's Dragonfly launch vehicle. That shit lands on its tail, requiring only refueling and loading of payload. That's that main stage, by far the most expensive, being made nearly 100% reusable. Then you've got Companies like Virgin Galactic that want to make space tourism a reality, and throw a few hair-brain ideas like Buzz Aldrin's StarBooster, and you've got the makings of a new golden age of space exploration and commercialization, which will in turn drive more innovation. You think if VG's SpaceShip stuff becomes a success, which it easily could, that they won't pursue more avenues of bringing tourists to space? And Elon Musk has already said he eventually wants to be mining asteroids and colonizing mars in the next few decades, and who says that won't inspire new technologies? Just the other day I recall reading an article about experiments in tractor-beams using a special projection pattern of light, and there are of course NASA's plans to lasso a fucking asteroid and bring it into EO for study.

In short, if you don't think that new developments in technology are even possible, you're an idiot speaking out of your ass with literally no idea what the fuck you're talking about. This is probably just fucking bait anyway, but this really pissed me the fuck off.

>>7771212
spacecraft technology is the same as it was decades ago, they just have computers now.

>>7767971
Do you realize how retarded you sound?
You're literally saying that smart phones prove technology isn't advancing, because rather than stick with the old retarded design, they advanced technology.
You're an idiot.

>>7767865
but to make such a blanket statement is the same as saying we would have flying cars in 2015. One thing I think is interesting is while yes we probably won't have sci fi supercomputer smart watches, the possible diversity of computer technology now as amazing potential.

It's been dead for closing on a decade. It's delusional and doesn't take into account the physical limitations of our universe.

>>7771348
But it's painful to see all the potential the technology has and slowly realize that social and political factors most likely won't allow all this to reach anywhere near its full potential.

>>7771193
More importantly re-establishing / fortifying social control phase. The "wild west" days of the internet can't be allowed to keep going.

ITT: High Schoolers who think they know everything about transistors because it was a chapter in their Physics book

>>7767865
>I think a lot of people are going to be in for a rude awakening when in 20 years we have nothing new other than slightly faster computers and higher resolutions. Innovation is dead.
I think people underestimate the impact artificial wombs will have. That's a technology that will change our society imho.

>>7767889
Moore's law is genuinely stuttering (for real this time; single-core performance fell off Moore's law a long time ago, and it's proving extraordinarily difficult to economically manufacture further scalings on schedule.) and will likely break down entirely in the near future.

The idea that this means the end of innovation, or even the end of massive improvements in computer technology, is ludicrous. All it means is that those improvements to computer technology won't come on an insane doubling-every-two-years timeframe, but in slow evolution and stuttering punctuated-equilibrium breakthroughs like, for instance, every other field of technology ever.

Hell, it doesn't even mean that innovation will suddenly slow elsewhere. Kurzweil's claims aside, improved computing technology wasn't even close to the main driver of innovation in other fields, and they never grew exponentially in step with it.

>>7771724
Also, the way chip companies were chained to Moore's law genuinely stifled a lot of innovation.

When you have to deliver a doubling every two years or be outcompeted, long-term basic research gets crushed under the mad scramble. You have to go with the safe option or you're gambling everything on being able to develop and scale unproven technology in a time horizon of less than a decade.

The end of the mad trillion-dollar scramble of engineering and research on an epic scale that Moore's law required will mean an expansion of the time horizon and a greater ability to experiment and pursue radically new designs.

>>7771729
Oh, and with developers no longer able to count on improved hardware fixing their software bloat, we might finally start getting actually good software. Things have changed so rapidly there hasn't really been any time to discover how to code well. As soon as the field has had enough experience to start developing that, things have changed so radically that's no longer applicable.

And again, seriously, doubling computing power never doubled other fields of science and engineering. It's been extremely helpful, but simulations aren't even close to everything. For instance, simulations of biochemistry have pretty much always been useless, and yet medicine advances.

>>7767865
>Innovation is dead.

He says as quantum computers are literally being built in science labs.

>>7767808
It is call physics,
or more accurately "known physics".

There are many limitations we are running into.

Personally I don't trust transistors smaller than 15 nm, because of all the instability I have seen working with nano materials around that range.

Just because we can build single atoms transistors does not mean they will be significantly functional because of all the things that can go wrong. Seriously, miss place an electron and you got a bad day.

Despite reaching these limits which do not appear to have any solutions we can still get a lot more out of out technology with better software and application setups. That said we got to learn to better use what we got before we get more than we can handle less we waste it like we do.

File: women_point.jpg (128KB, 800x533px) Image search: [Google]

128KB, 800x533px

>>7771735
>He actually thinks that quantum computers will be useful for general purpose computing

>>7771142
It shows why exponential growth of heat is bad

ITT: A bunch of neckbeards in denial of the fact that they won't see a drastic technological advancement in their lifetimes like their parents did.

Get a load of everyone literally posting meme technology:
>>7771193
Literally trying to market humanitarian "technology" as an advancement

>>7771735
>believing today's "quantum computers" will amount to anything other than oversized refrigerators that are just there to be there

Any electrical engineer without a neckbeard working in the VLSI industry will tell you that Moores Law will be irrelevant in a few years.

>>7771735
name one use of quantum computers outside of cryptography

>>7773459
checking if an element is contained within a set

more importantly, this thread is fucking old why did you respond to it

File: Confused_cat.jpg (51KB, 400x323px) Image search: [Google]

51KB, 400x323px

>>7767865
>Technology is invented
>May not even get patented
>Will be used for small scale or specialized stuff to small degree
>20-40 years later
>Technology is used for practical application towards the public
>Caring about Moores benchmark law at all

File: amdahl.png (30KB, 582x470px) Image search: [Google]

30KB, 582x470px

>>7769583
And "full performance gain" is often not possible to get. Amdahl's law is kind of a bitch.

>>7767808
There is no way to dissipate that much heat produced by all those transistors.

File: 1530441708680.jpg (81KB, 800x1000px) Image search: [Google]

81KB, 800x1000px

>>7775160
100% PARALLEL WORKLOADS

File: forty keks.png (224KB, 358x310px) Image search: [Google]

224KB, 358x310px

>>7767822
>thinks we can achieve the singularity without substantial advances in hardware

File: 1449224736374.png (406KB, 601x601px) Image search: [Google]

406KB, 601x601px

>>7775197
THROW A FUCKLOAD OF AWS GPU INSTANCES AT THE PROBLEM, BEOWULF ALL THE WORKSTATIONS AT THE OFFICE TOGETHER.

And then you hit memory and networking bottlenecks and cry.

>>7775213
Kek

File: 14524809189292.png (1MB, 1190x1190px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 1190x1190px

>>7775209
No wait, shit, we were talking about parallel workloads, the picture is all wrong.

>>7769398
>Mars colony by 2035
How do you think we're going to get there? Our current engines aren't good enough and it's doubtful we'll see any major improvements in a few decades.

>>7770681
>implying carrying more computing power than the entire Apollo program in your pocket is somehow not a big deal

>>7770919
So, we need to start making CPU's out of uranium?

>>7771310
Practical ion engines are fairly new, but really only useful for probes

File: parallel_kek.png (927KB, 2864x1550px) Image search: [Google]

927KB, 2864x1550px

>>7775222
everything needs more parallel

>>7775227
>Our current engines aren't good enough and it's doubtful we'll see any major improvements in a few decades.
well there is that guy in omaha trying to get a warp drive running, but he's probably going to fail

>>7771729
This guy gets it

>>7767902
>he believes that technology is the best it's gonna get

I never knew /sci/ could contain such a lack of foresight

File: 1d293e3f16eb60883c1f7beece13d04c.jpg (29KB, 726x282px) Image search: [Google]

29KB, 726x282px

>>7767808


The era of great technological, scientific and medical progress is over because we have stopped dreaming.

In 1960, when you asked people how they see the future, they spoke of flying cars, of the end of major diseases, of colonization of space.

In 1970, innovation was the spacial rockets, automation of daily tasks, etc.

In 2010, innovation is a facebook application.