Posted: Apr 29, 2017 12:01 pm
crank wrote:I'm not arguing for a limitless increase in computation, only that the author seems to me unable to see how there's a rather huge gap between better than what we have now but not that much better, and limitless increases.
Well, weren't you just saying that progress is exponential? I think what you're contending with is that we can rule that out for reasons already given. When all else fails, redefine success. That said, all else hasn't failed, yet, but the article linked in the OP is a sensible step in the direction of re-definition and away from futurological porn.