Technology plateu

Processors are still too slow for AI and ray tracing

>>59817830
sage

>human eyes can only see 60fps.
You're retarded

>>59817860
It's complex. Sure we can see up to 1000fps in some situations but I'm talking about information you can process and act upon. Hard to react upon that 1/1000th frame what are you going to do with that?

>>59817830
>video games are representative of technological progress in general

REEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE GET OUT NORMIE

>>59817830
>Even if we had the most insanely fast processors, programs only need to process so much.
Processing requirements are correlated with number of Pajeets on the dev team. So either they go back, or we need faster processors.

>>59817830
My humble opinion is that you are SO WRONG, really really wrong and I hope you carefully consider what I have to say about WHY because it may be very important to you.

We are at the verge of a global transformation. Automation and robotics are just now reaching the point where they are becoming very viable alternatives to human labor in a significant number of areas.

I do agree that it makes little difference to anyone if you can do 144 or 288 fps. While you can argue that there is a difference between 30 and 60 fps, that's not really something that makes much difference to society either.

There are currently a few McDonalds test-restaurants where you go to what used to be the cash register and you click buttons for what you want and you pay the machine and you then go to a delivery slot and pick up your order. That is a pretty radical change both for customers and for people in general because now we're talking about a whole lot of lost jobs nation-wide.

Driverless cars are also about to become a viable alternative to drivers. Those who own a car may prefer to drive it themselves. The change will come where people are employed to drive, taxies, delivery trucks and so on may soon see a big change.

Now go on to look at what Boston Dynamics and companies like that are doing with robots for practical applications. A lot of people work in warehouses. Now there are robots for that. Today they are rare but that's going to change.

>>59817855
>too slow for AI
We already have close enough "AI" for practical applications. Real AI is far, far away but that's not really important. Robots that can find their way around a warehouse and put the right box in it's right place are already being produced. Some call these robots "AI" even though they are clearly not; they know how to walk and pick things up and put them down and that's it. But that's enough to replace human jobs.

Seriously: I truly believe that technology will bring about changes that are as revolutionary as the industrial revolution was during the next 10 years.

File: go_forth_my_minions_by_punakettu-d5frp9p.jpg (106KB, 1131x707px) Image search: [Google]

106KB, 1131x707px

>>59817830
this chart really assumes world stability and nicey nicey optimism.

I would like to see this same chart with military applications inserted.

brave new world vs 1984

>the corporation reserves the right to activate remote determination if proper debriefing protocols cannot be followed upon employment termination

>the ECG seeking drones killed a million people in the city of wherever after a judge agreed that social analytics proved rebellion was imminent.

>man arrested for generating numerous cryptographic keypairs bypassing the government CA.

>AI guardians stop earth's barycenter shifting because of too much mass being moved to one side of the planet / removed from gravity well.

>core contingency

>>59817935
>Here's a thing that's totally unrelated to me being wrong!

>>59817830
>Even if I could get 300fps it wouldn't matter as human eyes can only see 60fps.
Do people really fucking believe this?

>>59817830
Holy fucking shit you're retarded.
>Even if we had the most insanely fast processors, programs only need to process so much. It seems were hitting that point right now. Just an interesting thought and I was curious what you all thought.

>>59819836
>Do people really fucking believe this?
Not after they've tried playing on a system with a 144hz monitor, no. That being said, I personally think that 60fps is "enough" for now because the current choice is either a 60hz monitor with a IPS or AHVA panel that's usable for more than gaming or a TN panel with washed out colors that look like garbage.

>>59817830
>human eyes can only see 60fps
WRONG!
trained people can see up to 500 fps

>>59820623
but you only really need ~60 fps for your 3d hentai volleyball dressup flash games