David’s post implied that we should only consider something to be a FOOM if it follows exponential growth and never sees diminishing returns. In that case, we cannot have a true foom if energy and matter are finite. No matter how intelligent a computer gets, it eventually will slow down and stop increasing capacity because energy and matter both are limiting factors.
I don’t recall seeing the definition of a foom anywhere on this site, but it seems there is some inconstancy in how people use the word.
Hmm, you must be reading David’s remarks differently. David’s observation about sigmoids seemed to be more of an observation that in practice growth curves do eventually slow down and that they generally slow down well before the most optimistic and naive estimates would say so.
Most growth curves are sigmoid. They start off looking like a FOOM and finish with diminishing returns.
Most growth curves of things that grow because they are self-replicating are sigmoid.
“Capability functions” get to do whatever the heck they want, limited only by the whims of the humans (mostly me) I’m basing my estimates on.
If it is a finite universe, there will never be a “foom” (i love our technical lingo)
What does the size of the universe have to do with this?
David’s post implied that we should only consider something to be a FOOM if it follows exponential growth and never sees diminishing returns. In that case, we cannot have a true foom if energy and matter are finite. No matter how intelligent a computer gets, it eventually will slow down and stop increasing capacity because energy and matter both are limiting factors. I don’t recall seeing the definition of a foom anywhere on this site, but it seems there is some inconstancy in how people use the word.
Hmm, you must be reading David’s remarks differently. David’s observation about sigmoids seemed to be more of an observation that in practice growth curves do eventually slow down and that they generally slow down well before the most optimistic and naive estimates would say so.