Okay. Price-performance is a less-precise measure, because we can’t compare prices across decades accurately. I think you’d get similar results; though if they differed, I’d expect them to make the pre-Moore’s change look even faster. (The development cost of the ENIAC - $6M in 2008 dollars, according to Wikipedia—was small compared to the per-unit costs of later large computers. That’s much less in inflation-adjusted dollars than the IBM 7090 ($3M 1960) or Cray 2 ($25M 1985) cost per computer.)
Isn’t Kurzweil’s primary claim that technological progress has always been an exponential and that Moore’s law is just the best known instance of a broader phenomenon?
I’ve noticed that many people miss Kurzweil’s claims. Such as I keep encountering the misconception that Kurzweil claims that technical advances will become infinite, which is just silly, and he never claims this. I have talked briefly with him about it and he says that the exponential climb will probably give way to a new paradigm that changes the way things are done rather than continue to infinity (or approach an asymptote).
I think Kurzweil talks primarily about price-performance, rather than transistor numbers or clock speeds.
Okay. Price-performance is a less-precise measure, because we can’t compare prices across decades accurately. I think you’d get similar results; though if they differed, I’d expect them to make the pre-Moore’s change look even faster. (The development cost of the ENIAC - $6M in 2008 dollars, according to Wikipedia—was small compared to the per-unit costs of later large computers. That’s much less in inflation-adjusted dollars than the IBM 7090 ($3M 1960) or Cray 2 ($25M 1985) cost per computer.)
Isn’t Kurzweil’s primary claim that technological progress has always been an exponential and that Moore’s law is just the best known instance of a broader phenomenon?
I’ve noticed that many people miss Kurzweil’s claims. Such as I keep encountering the misconception that Kurzweil claims that technical advances will become infinite, which is just silly, and he never claims this. I have talked briefly with him about it and he says that the exponential climb will probably give way to a new paradigm that changes the way things are done rather than continue to infinity (or approach an asymptote).
Yes, that’s true.
I guess my point is confused. Let me reformulate. . . done.