Will we merge with machines by 2050?

unlikely

>>8198551
No. We are reaching the physical limit of transistor size.

>>8198565
heard of quantum computing lad

>>8198575
Okay? I never said it's impossible. I was implying the linear trend isn't a good model anymore. There will always be new technology to revolutionize the field, and this field is in need of a new idea to start being economically feasible.

>>8198565

That would make it impossible to make computers more powerful without taking up more space; but what if we just start making them larger?

>>8198551
heheh, i wish ;_;

>>8198551
I can see it becoming efficient around 2030 or so but that's also more or less around the time in human calendar where robots start developing themselves.

Which leads me to think these merged human-machines will more likely fight for the robots.

>>8198575
That's not going to make regular computers faster, it just does certain things faster.

Once we get it working properly that is, it's still really early days.

Do chip manufacturers actually have a plan for the necessary paradigm shift after ~7nm silicon transistors or are they just playing it by ear?

Because it all kind of hinges on that doesn't it? We're approaching the hard physical limits of silicon.

>>8198565

A molecular transister could be very, very small. By putting a whole bunch of molecules with different pKa's in the same water, you could just dump acids in to do a computation - your screen would show a result derived from interpreting which molecules were in the water.

Avogadro's number gives us the number of transisters per twleve grams - 1e23, basically. Our limitation then becomes how many different acids with different pKa's we can find, but the size and functional groups of a molecule could also be used to derive two different registers from one acid.

We won't merge with machines - machines will merge with us. Molecular transisters can be encoded in genes - just encode for acetic acid and catacholamines. Graphene can also be biogenically produced, as can goethite. Metal catalysts like heme are already there.

We already use molecular transisters - a receptor is already submerged in an acid, which is producing a context where changing the acidity changes which neurotransmitters have the energy to bind to the receptor.

Are we the epitome of biology? No. Our lab-creations are ourselves in the future, and we turn out better than we are now. The ancient stories of gods are actually about how we go back in time through closed timelike loops, and have sex with our own grandfathers to assure that we exist to enjoy being gods.

God really is an old white man with a beard.

Better not take that long

>>8198607
maximum speed will not increase with size.

We undoubtedly will be at the very least enhancing ourselves with chips and stuff. We are starting to do this now.
Conceivably chips can (and have) been put in brains to help handicapped people.

My feeling is, no total merging. We either leave the world to computers as our non biological "descendants", or we cohabitate with them, like know, harnessing their incomprehensible power... with the usual mix of nefarious and good intentions.

>>8199180
>chip speed is dependent on size

>>8199172
pretty sure you can construct most challenges of computation in such a way that a quantum computer can do it much better

of course it won't change anything on the users end but that's irrelevant

Do you people actually think throwing flops at the problem will somehow magically result in progress? Computing power isn't a limiting factor in brain modelling.

>>8199180
Well, I mean, you could always make a smaller silicon. Figure out how to make useful carbon transistors, maybe. Smaller atom, smaller transistor... ideally. In any case, I'm optimistic that it'll at least go a little farther than the limits of silicon. The question is if it can go even farther than that.