Interesting post. I thought this comparison from CNET was a bit misleading:
I drive a 1964 car. I also have a 2010. There’s not that much difference—gross performance indicators like top speed and miles per gallon aren’t that different. It’s safer, and there are a lot of creature comforts in the interior,” said Nvidia Chief Scientist Bill Dally. If Moore’s Law fizzles, “We’ll start to look like the auto industry.”
Car progress is clearly slower than computer progress, but it does seem very substantial:
The most recent survey by the Consumer Reports National Research Center found that five-year-old vehicles had about one-third fewer problems than the five-year-old vehicles we studied in April 2005. In fact, owners of about two-thirds of those vehicles reported no problems. And serious repairs, such as engine or transmission replacement, were quite rare.
One third fewer problems every 5 years seems like a very substantial rate of progress. It would be interesting to see if this rate of progress has continued from 2010-2014.
To be blunt, I don’t believe Dally. A while back, in the context of technological stagnation, I compared a 2012 Ford Focus to a 1970 Ford Maverick—both popular midrange compact cars for their time—and found that the Focus beat the pants off the Maverick on every metric but price (it cost about twice what the Maverick did, adjusted for inflation). Roughly twice the engine power with 1.5 to 2x the gas mileage; more interior room; far safer and more reliable; vastly better amenities.
It’s not scaling as fast as Moore’s Law by any means, but progress is happening. That might be tempered a bit by the price point, but reliability alone would be a strong counter to that once you amortize over the lifetime of the car.
My scenario #1 explicitly says that even in the face of a slowdown, we’ll see doubling times of 10-25 years: “If the doubling time reverts to the norm seen in other cutting-edge industrial sectors, namely 10-25 years, then we’d probably see the introduction of revolutionary new product categories only about once a generation.”
So I’m not predicting complete stagnation, just a slowdown where computing power gains aren’t happening fast enough for us to see new products every few years.
Interesting post. I thought this comparison from CNET was a bit misleading:
Car progress is clearly slower than computer progress, but it does seem very substantial:
One third fewer problems every 5 years seems like a very substantial rate of progress. It would be interesting to see if this rate of progress has continued from 2010-2014.
To be blunt, I don’t believe Dally. A while back, in the context of technological stagnation, I compared a 2012 Ford Focus to a 1970 Ford Maverick—both popular midrange compact cars for their time—and found that the Focus beat the pants off the Maverick on every metric but price (it cost about twice what the Maverick did, adjusted for inflation). Roughly twice the engine power with 1.5 to 2x the gas mileage; more interior room; far safer and more reliable; vastly better amenities.
It’s not scaling as fast as Moore’s Law by any means, but progress is happening. That might be tempered a bit by the price point, but reliability alone would be a strong counter to that once you amortize over the lifetime of the car.
My scenario #1 explicitly says that even in the face of a slowdown, we’ll see doubling times of 10-25 years: “If the doubling time reverts to the norm seen in other cutting-edge industrial sectors, namely 10-25 years, then we’d probably see the introduction of revolutionary new product categories only about once a generation.”
So I’m not predicting complete stagnation, just a slowdown where computing power gains aren’t happening fast enough for us to see new products every few years.